\ 


OF  THE 

[UNIVERSITY! 

.c,     OF 


publications 


OF   THE 


University  of  Pennsylvania 


SERIES  IN 

HISTORY 


No.    2 


THE  SUFFRAGE  FRANCHISE  IN  THE 

THIRTEEN  ENGLISH  COLONIES 

IN  AMERICA 

BY 

ALBERT  EDWARD  MCKINLEY 

Sometime  Honorary  Fellow  in  American  History  in  the 
University  of  Pennsylvania 


??>. 

OF  THf- 

UWIVI 

Published  for  the  University      \ 

PHILADELPHIA 

1905 
GINN  &  Co.,  Selling  Agents,  29  Beacon  Street,  Boston,  Mass. 


J 


Copyright,  1905,  by 
ALBERT  EDWARD  MCKINLEY 


PREFACE 


THIS  historical  sketch  of  the  colonial  suffrage  is  the  out 
growth  of  studies  begun  several  years  ago  in  the  Department 
of  Philosophy  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania.  The  pur 
pose  of  the  writer  has  been  to  present  the  dynamic  or  devel 
opmental  aspect  of  the  subject  rather  than  the  analytic;  he 
has  not  been  content  with  a  mere  summary  of  the  suffrage 
qualifications  in  the  several  colonies,  but  has  endeavored  to 
trace  the  growth  of  colonial  ideals  and  practices  respecting 
the  elective  franchise.  A  comparative  or  analytic  treatment 
might  have  been  of  value  to  the  student  of  colonial  institu 
tions,  but  there  were  sufficient  reasons  for  putting  this 
method  aside.  In  the  first  place,  the  excellent  analysis  to  be 
found  in  Bishop's  History  of  Elections  in  the  American  Colo 
nies  could  scarcely  be  improved  upon;  and,  secondly,  the 
comparative  arrangement  would  give  but  slight  opportunity 
for  the  narrative  element.  Consequently,  the  subject  has 
been  treated  locally ;  and,  wherever  the  existing  records  have 
rendered  such  treatment  possible,  sufficient  details  have  been 
given  to  lead  to  a  comprehension  of  the  motives  of  colonial 
legislators  in  their  policy  of  suffrage  restrictions.  The  dis 
advantages  of  repetition  have  been  braved  rather  than  sacri 
fice  the  consecutive  narrative  in  any  colony. 

To  a  complete  knowledge  of  the  suffrage  franchise,  an  ac 
quaintance  with  the  representative  systems,  the  methods  of 
voting  and  the  whole  elective  machinery  is  necessary;  and 
frequent  references  have  been  made  to  these  subjects.  The 
author  has,  however,  had  in  mind  the  fact  that  detailed  stud 
ies  of  some  of  these  features  have  already  been  made,  and  he 
has  governed  himself  largely  in  the  inclusion  or  rejection  of 
such  material,  by  the  extent  to  which  it  has  hitherto  been 
used.  Thus  in  the  New  England  colonies,  the  systems  of 
which  have  been  carefully  studied,  he  has  limited  himself 
narrowly  to  the  suffrage  qualifications ;  in  other  cases,  as  in 


13*500 


iv  Preface. 

the  Carolinas  and  New  York,  more  attention  has  been  given 
to  these  circumstances  under  which  the  suffrage  was  exer 
cised. 

The  material  for  the  study  has  been  gathered  almost  ex 
clusively  from  the  printed  records  of  the  several  colonies,  and 
from  the  various  editions  of  colonial  laws.  For  the  latter, 
continuous  use  has  been  made,  during  the  preparation  of  the 
work,  of  the  valuable  Charlemagne  Tower  Collection  of  Col 
onial  Laws  in  the  library  of  the  Historical  Society  of  Penn 
sylvania.  The  writer  regrets  that  the  two  volumes  of  Pro 
fessor  H.  L.  Osgood,  which  have  done  so  much  to  classify 
the  facts  and  clarify  our  ideas  of  colonial  administration  in 
the  seventeenth  century,  were  not  in  print  during  the  prepa 
ration  of  this  volume.  The  absence  of  an  extended  bibliog 
raphy  is  to  be  accounted  for  by  the  copious  use  of  foot-notes. 

In  conclusion,  the  author  wishes  to  extend  his  thanks  for 
the  encouragement  and  advice  given  so  generously  by  the 
members  of  the  Department  of  History  of  the  University  of 
Pennsylvania,  and  particularly  to  express  his  appreciation  of 
the  interest  in  the  work  shown  by  Professor  John  Bach  Mc- 
Master  and  Professor  Herman  V.  Ames.  At  a  time  when  it 
seemed  that  the  work  must  remain  unfinished,  their  interest 
led  to  its  completion.  Acknowledgment  is  gratefully  made 
also  of  the  uniform  courtesy  shown  to  the  author  by  the 
librarian  of  the  Historical  Society  of  Pennsylvania,  Mr. 
John  W.  Jordan,  and  by  his  assistants,  during  many  months 
of  almost  continuous  use  of  the  Society's  collections. 

ALBERT  E.  McKiNLEY. 

PHILADELPHIA,  January,  1905. 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  PACE 

I.  PARLIAMENTARY  SUFFRAGE  IN  ENGLAND  i 

r     II.  THE  SUFFRAGE  IN  VIRGINIA 17 

III.  THE  SUFFRAGE  IN  MARYLAND  48 

f  IV.  THE  SUFFRAGE  IN  NORTH  CAROLINA   79 

V.  THE  SUFFRAGE  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA 122 

VI.  THE  SUFFRAGE  IN  GEORGIA    163 

f  VII.  THE  SUFFRAGE  IN  NEW  YORK   174 

VIII.  THE  SUFFRAGE  IN  NEW  JERSEY  227 

,  IX.  THE  SUFFRAGE  IN  DELAWARE  259 

X.  THE  SUFFRAGE  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  273 

«   XL  THE  SUFFRAGE  IN  MASSACHUSETTS    300 

j   XII.  THE  SUFFRAGE  IN  NEW  HAMPSHIRE  37° 

XIII.  THE  SUFFRAGE  IN  CONNECTICUT    380 

XIV.  THE  SUFFRAGE  IN  RHODE  ISLAND  43° 

XV.  CONCLUSION  473 

INDEX  .  489 


,-^ 
f  u&- 


OF   THf  \ 

-    •       TY  ) 

.'•••"' 


THE    SUFFRAGE    FRANCHISE    IN 
THE    ENGLISH    COLONIES 


CHAPTER    I. 

PARLIAMENTARY  SUFFRAGE  IN  ENGLAND. 

The  thirteen  American  colonies  were  communities  whose 
thoughts  and  habits  as  well  as  language  were  English. 
Groups  of  settlers  from  other  nations  might  be  found  along 
the  Atlantic  seaboard  in  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  cen 
turies,  but  their  numbers  were,  proportionately,  small,  and 
their  influence  upon  American  institutions  slight.  But  while 
the  colonies  were  distinctively  English,  they  were  also 
American.  Frequent  reference  will  be  made  in  the  follow 
ing  pages  to  the  purely  arbitrary  English  suffrage  qualifi 
cation  of  an  annual  income  of  forty  shillings  from  freehold 
land,  which  at  one  time  or  another  the  strength  of  English 
precedent  forced  upon  the  voters  of  more  than  half  of  the 
colonies.  On  the  other  hand,  the  only  reason  for  making 
this  study  has  been  to  show  the  adaptation  of  English  politi 
cal  ideals  and  practices  to  American  conditions;  had  the 
new  environment  or  conscious  endeavor  forced  no  change  in 
the  English  customs,  this  story  would  have  been  but  a  short 
one. 

The  body  of  this  work  will,  therefore,  be  devoted  to  an 
account  of  the  attempt  in  each  colony  to  administer  the  Eng 
lish  theories  of  election  and  representation  under  widely 
different  conditions  from  those  which  held  good  in  the  Eng 
land  of  colonial  days.  We  shall  trace  the  influence  of  cheap 
land,  of  religious  zeal,  or  of  frontier  ideals  of  equality  upon 
the  English  aristocratic  political  system  ;  and  we  shall  notice 
the  ever-continuing  effort  of  the  English  authorities  to  dupli- 


2       The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

cate  in  the  diverse  American  settlements  the  political  fran 
chise  of  England.  In  the  final  chapter  the  features  of  diver 
gence  from  the  English  system  will  be  summarized  and  the 
points  of  similarity  collated.  The  present  chapter  will  be 
devoted  to  a  short  account  of  the  parliamentary  suffrage  in 
England. 

In  the  ggYfrt<afant^  r<antpry,  the  age  of  greatest  American 
colonization,  the  English  House  of  Commgns  was  still  repre 
sentative,  as  it  had  been  for  over  three  hundred  years,  of  two 
quite  distinct  constituencies.  There  were,  first,  the  county 
representatives,  two  of  whom  were  elected  for  each  county 
of  England,  and  one  for  each  Welsh  county  ;  and  secondly, 
the  corporation  rnernhers.  two  of  whom  usually,  but  in  a 
few  cases  only  one,  came  from  the  cities,1  certain  designated 
towns  or  boroughs,  the  Cinque  ports  and  the  two  universi 

ties.      Previous  tn    ifrf?  frpqnpnt  rhang-pr   in   tVio  rmmhnr  nf 

rr)prnbpr<;  nf  thp  hrmsp  wprp  rn^fjp  •  but  after  that  date,  until 
the  reform  act  of  1832,  there  were  513  representatives  of 
England  and  Wales.  Of  this  number,  92  came  from  the 
counties,  and  the  remainder,  421,  represented  the  various 
corporations.2 

The  electors  of  these  county  and  corporation   members 

certain  of 


which  were  imposed  upon  all  electors  of  members  of  parlia 
ment,  while  others  were  required  only  of  narrow  groups  of 
electors.  The  ancient  age  restriction  of  twenty-one  years 
-was  required  of  all  electors,3  and  the  immemorial  exclusion 
of  women  from  political  life  was  always  adhered  to  in  the 
letter,  although  perhaps  broken  in  the  spirit  in  the  elections 

1  London  alone  sent  four  representatives. 

1  Porritt,  The  Unreformed  House  of  Commons,  I,  15-17. 

8  Originally  there  were  several  ages  at  which  men  of  different  classes 
of  society  reached  a  legal  station  (Pollock  and  Maitland,  History  of 
English  Law,  II,  436)  ;  but  at  the  time  of  the  colonization  of  America 
the  age  of  twenty-one  years  required  for  those  who  held  by  knight's 
service  had  been  extended  from  the  gentry  and  had  become  the  lawful 
age  for  all  classes  (ibid.;  Coke,  Inst.,  I,  78  b,  171  b,  245  b;  Black- 
stone,  I,  173). 


Parliamentary  Suffrage  in  England.  3 

of  a  few  boroughs.1  The  actual  presence  of  the  elector,  a 
requirement  which  made  proxy  voting  illegal,2  was  found 
throughout  the  English  elective  system,  and  led  to  an  opposi 
tion  in  England  to^ie  establishment  of  balloting  methods' 
in  America.3  The  iRer  in  all  cases  must  be  either  a  native- 
born  English  citizen,  or  a  naturalized  foreigner.4 

Besides  these  time-honored  qualifications,  there  were  more 
temporary  ones  which  for  a  greater  or  less  length  of  time 
were  imposed  upon  all  electors.  These  were  commonly  some 
form  of  oath  or  attachment  to  the  established  government. 
Thus  under  Cromwell,  the  Instrument  of  Government  of 
1653  excluded  Catholics  from  all  elections  for  members  of 
parliament,  and  disfranchised  all  who  had  "  aided,  advised, 
assisted  or  abetted"  the  war  against  Parliament,  "  unless 
they  have  been  since  in  the  service  of  the  Parliament,  and 
given  signal  testimony  of  their  good  affection  thereunto/'  5 
After  the  Restoration  there  was  no  such  intervention  with  the 
suffrage.  The  legislation  of  the  Cavalier  Parliament  was 
directed  against  the  holding  of  office  by  dissenters  in  the 
national  government  or  in  the  municipalities,  but  it  did  not 


1  In  the  boroughs  where  the  right  of  suffrage  was  dependent  upon 
the  holding  of  certain  ancient  lands  or  lots,  called  therefore  burgage- 
boroughs,  women  who  held  such  land  were  permitted  to  transfer  the 
right  to  vote,  in  virtue  thereof  to  their  husbands,  sons,  sons-in-law,  or 
their  nephews   (Porritt,  I,  40,  223)  ;    and  in  freeman  boroughs,  where 
the  freemanship  was  conferred  by  marriage  with  a  freeman's  daughter, 
such  marriageable  females  were  much  in  demand   (ibid.,  78-80).     See 
also  History  of  Richmond  in  County  of  Yoji  (anon.,  1814),  138. 

2  5  Day's  Reports,  333,  quoted  by  Baldwin,  Nfw  Haven  Hist.  SQC. 
Papers,  V,  196.     Except  in  the  case  of  peers,  who  were  privileged  to 
select  proxies  to  vote  for  them  in  the  House  of  Lords    (Blackstone, 
I,  168).    At  a  very  early  period  proxies  may  have  been  permitted  (Cox, 
Antient  Parliamentary  Elections,  109). 

3  See  post,  131,  156,  157. 

4  As   the   foreigner  possessed    few   civil   rights   even   in   England   at 
common   law,    so   he   could   exercise   no   political    rights   while  out  of 
allegiance  to  the  king.     Even  naturalized  persons  could  not  serve  as 
members   of   the    House   of   Commons    until    1870    (33    and   34   Viet, 
chap.  13). 

5  Instrument  of  Government,  sects,  xiv-xviii. 


4      The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

extend  to  a  general  restriction  upon  the  suffrage.1  The 
Revolution  of  1688,  however,  brought  a  more  general  and 
more  permanent  qualification  upon  electors.  By  a  statute 
of  1696  2  the  sheriffs  or  officers  of  ele^ion  for  members  of 
Parliament  were  required,  upon  the  request  of  any  candi 
date,  to  administer  certain  oaths  to  electors,  and  no  person 
refusing  to  take  the  oaths  could  vote  "  for  the  Election  of 
any  Knight  of  the  Shire  Citizen  Burgesse  or  Baron  of  the 
Cinque  Ports  to  serve  in  Parliament."  The  enforcement  of 
this  provision,3  later  amended  4  and  extended  to  parliamen 
tary  elections  in  Scotland,5  while  not  excluding  'Catholics 
by  name,  must  necessarily  have  cut  out  many  of  them  from 
parliamentary  elections,  especially  those  who  had  Jacobite 
sympathies.6 

These  qualifications, — age,  sex,  attendance  upon  election, 

1  The  "  Five-Mile  Act,"  17  Chas.   II,  ch.  2,  practically  excluded  all 
dissenting  preachers  from  voting  for  members  of  Parliament  in  bor 
oughs  ;    but  it  did  not  extend  to  all  dissenters,  nor,  presumably,  did  it 
even  exclude  these  preachers  from  voting  in  the  counties. 

2  7  and  8  Wm.  Ill,  ch.  27,  sect,  xviii. 
8  The  oaths  are  as  follows : 

"  I  A  B  doe  sincerely  Promise  and  Sweare  That  I  will  be 
Faithfull  and  beare  true  Allegiance  to  Their  Majestyes  King 
William  and  Queene  Mary.  Soe  helpe  me  God  &c. 

"  I  A  B  doe  Sweare  That  I  doe  from  my  Heart  Abhor 
Detest  and  Abjure  as  Impious  and  Hereticall  that  Damnable 
Doctrine  and  Position  That  Princes  Excommunicated  or  De 
prived  by  the  Pope  or  any  Authoritie  of  the  See  of  Rome 
may  be  Deposed  or  Murthered  by  their  Subjects  or  any  other 
whatsoever.  • 

•       "  And    I   doe  Declare   That   noe   Forreigne    Prince    Person 
Prelate  State  or  Potentate  hath  or  ought  to  have  any  Juris 
diction   Power   Superiority   Preeminence   or  Authoritie   Eccle- 
siasticall    or    Spirituall    within    this    Realme.      Soe    helpe    me 
God  &c."     (i  Wm.  and  M.,  ch.  8). 
4  6  Ann.,  ch.  23. 
0 1  Geo.  I,  St.  2,  ch.  13,  sect.  4. 

8  Catholics  were,  of  course,  excluded  in  a  more  definite  way  from 
serving  in  the  House  of  Commons  by  reason  of  the  denial  of  belief  in 
transubstantiation  taken  by  all  members  of  the  House.  It  is  probable 
that  Catholics  during  the  eighteenth  century  abstained  from  political 
activities  (Amherst,  History  of  Catholic  Emancipation,  I,  78-80). 


Parliamentary  Suffrage  in  England.  5 

native  or  naturalized  citizenship,  and  the  taking  of  certain 
oaths, — were  the  general  restrictions  imposed  upon  all  elect 
ors  in  England  during  the  colonial  epoch.  In  addition  to 
these,  however,  ther^were  numerous  local  or  special  quali 
fications  which  made  the  suffrage  in  England  a  most  un 
systematic  political  practice.  These  can  best  be  appreciated 
by  separating  the  uniform  suffrage  for  county  members 
from  the  heterogeneous  qualifications  required  of  electors  in 
the  boroughs. 

A.    THE    COUNTY    FRANCHISE. 

During  the  first  two  hundred  years  of  the  history  of 
parliamentary  representation,  it  seems  probable  that  the 
knights  of  the  shires  were  elected  by  all  the  free  men  of  the 
respective  counties.1  Not  freeholders  alone,  but  persons  of 
lower  standing  took  part  in  the  elections  during  the  thir 
teenth,  fourteenth,  and  early  part  of  the  fifteenth  centuries. 
In  1430,  however,  Parliament  restricted  this  wide  franchise.2 
The  reasons  for  so  doing  are  set  forth  in  the  preamble  of 
the  statute : 

"  Whereas  the  Elections  of  Knights  of  Shires  to  come  to  the  Par 
liament  of  our  Lord  the  King  in  many  Counties  of  the  Realm  of 
England  have  now  of  late  been  made  by  very  great  outrageous  and 
excessive  Number  of  People  dwelling  within  the  same  Counties  of  the 
Realm  of  England,  of  the  which  most  Part  was  of  People  of  small 
Substance  and  of  no  Value  whereof  every  of  them  pretended  a  Voice 
equivalent  as  to  such  Elections  to  be  made,  with  the  most  worthy 
Knights  and  Esquires  dwelling  within  the  same  Counties,  whereby 
Manslaughters  Riots  Batteries  and  Divisions  among  the  Gentlemen 
and  other  People  of  the  same  Counties,  shall  very  likely  rise  and  be, 
unless  some  convenient  and  due  Remedy  be  provided  in  this  Behalf.". 

Whereupon  it  was  enacted, 

"  That  the  Knights  of  the  Shires  to  be  chosen  within  the  same  Realm 
of  England,  to  come  to  the  Parliaments  of  our  Lord  the  King,  here 
after  to  be  holden,  shall  be  chosen  in  every  County  of  the  Realm  of 
England  by  People  dwelling  and  resident  in  the  same  Counties,  whereof 
every  one  of  them  shall  have  free  Land  or  Tenement  to  the  Value  of 
Forty  Shillings  by  the  Year  at  the  least  above  all  Charges." 

1  H.  Cox,  Antient  Parliamentary  Elections,  64-86  passim;    103-108, 
124 ;    Grego,  History  of  Parliamentary  Elections,  7. 

2  8  Hen.  VI,  ch.  7. 


6      The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

The  persons  having  the  greatest  number  of  such  "  choosers" 
in  their  favor  were  to  be  the  knights  for  the  county;  and 
sheriffs  were  impowered  "  to  examine  upon  the  Evangelists" 
every  chooser  to  determine  if  he  possess^!  the  required  quali 
fication. 

In  spite  of  the  great  changes  in  the  value  of  the  shilling; 
in  spite  of  the  growth  of  the  copyhold  and  other  tenures 
than  the  freehold;  in  spite  of  the  difficulty  of  determining 
the  value  of  a  freehold  under  the  law,  and  in  spite  of  the 
indefinite  meaning  of  the  word  freehold  itself;  despite  all 
these  facts,  English  conservatism  retained  the  forty  shilling 
freehold  as  the  exclusive  qualification  of  county  voters  for 
over  four  hundred  years,  and  as  an  alternative  to  other 
qualifications  it  is  still  a  part  of  the  English  elective  system.v, 

It  will  be  noticed  from  the  above  excerpt  that  the  voter 
was  required  to  reside  within  the  county.  A  similar  pro 
vision  had  been  enacted  some  years  before  the  property 
requirement  was  adopted ; 1  and  it  was  continued  in  subse 
quent  statutes.2  In  spite  of  the  statutory  provision,  how 
ever,  by  the  time  of  American  colonization,  the  opposite 
practice  had  been  adopted;  the  freeholder  was  no  longer 
required  to  be  a  resident  of  the  county  where  his  freehold 
lay  and  where  he  voted ;  but  he  could  vote  in  several  counties 
if  he  possessed  the  necessary  freehold  in  each.  The  process 
by  which  this  change  had  come  about  is  not  very  clear,  but 
the  right  of  non-residents  to  vote  was  well-established  in 
the  seventeenth  century ; 3  and,  in  1 774,  when  the  early  resi 
dence  acts  had  been  found  "  by  long  usage  to  be  unneces 
sary"  and  obsolete,  they  were  formally  repealed.4  A  poll  in 
Northampton  County  in  1730  showing  a  proportion  of  about 
seven  per  cent,  of  "  outvoters,"  or  non-residents,5  gives  an 

1 1  Henry  V,  ch.  I. 

1  A  convenient  work  upon  elections  is  A  Collection  of  the  Statutes 
Now  in  Force  Relative  to  Elections  down  to  the  Present  Time,  R. 
Troward,  London,  1790. 

3  Porritt,  House  of  Commons,  I,  24;  A.  Kelly,  An  Essay  on  the 
Elective  Franchise,  25. 

4 14  Geo.  Ill,  ch.  58. 

5  See  Copies  of  the  Polls  taken  at  the  Several  Elections  for  Members 
to  Represent  the  County  of  Northampton  in  Parliament  in  the  Years 


Parliamentary  Suffrage  in  England.  7 

idea  of  the  extent  to  which  non-residents  voted  in  the  county 
elections. 

Throughout  the  eighteenth  century,  while  no  change  was 
made  in  the  forty-shilling  freehold,  yet  there  was  abundant 
parliamentary  legislation  relating  to  the  conduct  of  elections. 
Some  of  these  acts,  particularly  those  of  1696,*  and  I7ii,2 
exercised  a  wide  influence  upon  the  machinery  of  elections  in 
the  colonies,  and  their  provisions  were  sometimes  copied 
verbatim  into  the  colonial  election  laws.  For  convenience 
of  comparison  with  the  American  legislation,  a  few  of  the 
terms  of  these  acts  may  be  mentioned  in  this  connection. 
In  1696,  to  prevent  "  charge  and  expense"  in  elections, 
various  forms  of  bribery  were  forbidden.3  In  the  same  year 
a  comprehensive  election  act  was  passed  to  abolish  the  evil 
practices  which  had  "  greatly  injured  and  abused"  the  right 
of  election.4  The  method  of  issuing  and  returning  election 
writs  and  precepts  was  fixed ;  the  place  of  election  was  to  be 
the  most  public  and  usual  place  of  meeting  of  the  county 
court  for  the  last  forty  years ;  in  case  the  election  could  not 
be  determined  "  upon  the  View  with  the  Consent  of  the 
Freeholders  there  present,"  a  poll  was  to  be  taken  by  the 
sheriff  and  clerks,  who  were  sworn  to  "  truely  and  indif 
ferently"  take  down  the  names  of  each  freeholder,  the  place 
of  his  freehold,  and  the  persons  for  whom  he  voted.  Voters 
could  be  required  to  swear  or  affirm  that  they  possessed  a 
freehold  of  the  yearly  value  of  forty  shillings ;  and  the  poll 
should  be  continued  from  day  to  day  until  all  the  freeholders  ^ 
had  been  polled.  Trustees  and  mortgagees  were  not  to  be 

170,?,  1705,  1730,  1745,  and  1806,  Northampton,  1832,  p.  79-185  passim. 
At  the  election  of  June  8,  9,  10,  1730,  there  were  at  least  288  outvoters 
out  of  4171  electors. 

1  7  and  8  Wm.  Ill,  chs.  7  and  25. 

"  10  Ann.,  ch.  31  (so  numbered  in  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  IX,  698-700, 
but  in  previous  editions  of  the  Statutes  at  Large  it  was  ch.  23). 

3  7  and  8  Wm.  Ill,  ch.  7.  No  candidate  shall  "  directly  or  indirectly 
give,  present  or  allow,  to  any  person  or  persons  having  voice  or  vote 
in  such  election,  any  money,  meat,  drink,  entertainment,  or  provision, 
or  make  any  present,  gift,  reward,  or  entertainment,  or  shall  at  any 
time  hereafter,  make  any  promise,  agreement,  obligation  or  engage 
ment  to  give  or  allow  any  money,  meat"  etc.  Elections  so  obtained 
were  to  be  void.  *  7  and  8  Wm.  Ill,  ch.  25. 


8       The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

permitted  to  vote  by  virtue  of  their  trusts  or  mortgages, 
unless  they  were  in  actual  possession  or  in  receipt  of  the  rents 
and  profits  of  the  estates.1  Conveyances  to  multiply  votes, 
or  to  split  and  divide  the  interest  in  freeholds  in  order  to 
qualify  several  persons  for  the  suffrage  were  to  be  void.2 
Another  clause  provided  that  "  noe  more  than  one  single 
Voice  shall  be  admitted  to  one  and  the  same  House  or  Tene 
ment:' 

By  the  preamble  of  the  act  of  i?!!,3  it  is  stated  that 
"  many  fraudulent  and  scandalous  Practices  have  been  used  of 
late,  to  create  and  multiply  Votes  at  the  Election  of  Knights 
of  the  Shires;"  and  it  is  enacted  that  all  such  conveyances,  in 
stead  of  being  void  as  was  provided  in  the  former  act,  were 
to  be  good  and  valid  against  the  persons  making  them,  while 
all  bonds  given  to  defeat  the  purpose  of  the  present  act  were 
to  be  void.  Further,  both  the  person  making  such  a  transfer 
and  the  one  voting  by  virtue  of  it  were  to  be  liable  to  a  fine 
of  forty  pounds  apiece.  Two  other  provisions  were  in  the 
nature  of  direct  additions  to  the  old  forty-shilling  qualifica 
tion.  The  first  of  these  provided  that  no  person  could  vote 
by  virtue  of  lands  or  tenements  "  which  have  not  been 
charged  or  assessed  to  the  publick  Taxes,  Church  Rates,  and 
Parish  Duties,  in  such  Proportion  as  other  Lands  or  Tene 
ments  of  Forty  Shillings  per  Annum ;"  4  thus  virtually  re- 

"  Noe  Person  or  Persons  shall  be  allowed  to  have  any  Vote  in 
Election  of  Members  to  serve  in  Parliament  for  or  by  reason  of  any 
Trust  Estate  or  Mortgage  unless  such  Trustee  or  Mortgagee  be  in 
actual  possession  or  receipt  of  the  Rents  and  Promts  of  the  same 
Estate,  but  that  the  Mortgager  or  Cestui  que  trust  in  possession  shall 
and  may  vote  for  the  same  Estate  notwithstanding  such  Mortgage  or 
Trust." 

1 "  And  that  all  Conveyances  of  any  Mesuages  Lands  Tenements  or 
Hereditaments  in  any  County,  City,  Borough,  Towne  Corporate,  Port 
or  Place  in  order  to  multiply  Voices  or  to  splitt  and  divide  the  Inter 
est  in  any  Houses  or  Lands  among  severall  Persons  to  enable  them  to 
vote  att  Elections  of  Members  to  serve  in  Parliament  are  hereby 
declared  to  bee  void  and  of  none  Effect." 

8 10  Ann.,  ch.  31   (23). 

4  By  12  Ann.,  ch.  5,  it  was  explained  that  this  ought  not  to  exclude 
persons  from  voting  who  were  in  possession  of  the  required  amount 
of  freehold  land,  which  legally  was  not  taxed — such  as  church  lands. 


Parliamentary  Suffrage  in  England.  9 

quiring  the  elector  to  be  a  taxpayer  as  well  as  a  freeholder.1 
The  second  provision  required  the  elector  to  be  in  receipt  of 
the  rents  and  profits  of  the  freehold,  or  entitled  to  receive 
them  for  one  year  before  an  election  "  unless  such  Lands  or 
Tenements  came  to  such  Person  within  the  Time  aforesaid 
by  Descent,  Marriage,  Marriage  Settlement,  Devise  or  Pre 
sentation  to  some  Benefice  in  the  Church  or  by  Promotion  to 
some  Office,  unto  which  such  Freehold  is  affixed." 

By  later  legislation  annuities  and  rent-charges  must  have 
been  registered  with  the  clerk  of  the  peace  twelve  months 
before  the  date  of  the  election;2  and  in  1757  it  was  pro 
vided  that  no  person  could  be  qualified  to  vote  for  knights 
of  the  shires  by  virtue  of  a  copyhold  estate.3 

In  concluding  the  subject  of  the  county  suffrage  it  may 
be  mentioned  that  the  franchise  under  the  forty-shilling  free 
hold  provision  was  extended  in  two  ways.  The  first  of  these 
was  by  means  of  the  splitting  up  of  estates  into  parcels  just 
large  enough  to  qualify  a  person  as  an  elector.  Such  voters 
were  called  "  faggot"  voters,  and,  as  has  been  noticed,  par 
liament  attempted  by  statute  to  prevent  their  multiplication. 
There  is  no  question,  however,  that  as  the  value  of  money 
declined,  the  forty  shilling  qualification  became  easier  of 
attainment,  and  thus  led  to  a  wider  franchise.  The  same 
result  was  reached  in  a  second  way  by  a  broader  interpreta 
tion  of  the  word  freehold  as  an  estate  for  life  or  greater 
dignity.  What  had  originally  been  attached  to  real  estate 
alone,  now  came  to  be  applied  to  annuities  or  to  rent- 
charges,  or  any  other  form  of  income  continuing  during  the 
life  of  the  holder.  It  was  even  extended  to  positions  in  the 
church  or  the  judicial  service  where  the  tenure  and  income 
were  for  life.  Thus,  clergymen  of  the  Church  of  England, 
the  holders  of  lectureships,  judicial  officers  and  clerks  of  the 
peace,  schoolmasters,  and  even  choristers  in  the  cathedrals  4 
voted  in  respect  of  their  offices.  By  the  increase  in  the  num- 

1  The  statute  only  required  the  freehold  to  have  been  assessed  for 
the  taxes,  they  need  not  have  been  paid ;  but  in  the  majority  of  cases 
at  least  tax-assessing  and  tax-paying  would  be  equivalent  terms. 

2Blackstone,  I,  173. 

"31  Geo.  II,  ch.  14. 

*  Porritt,  Unreformed  House  of  Commons,  I,  22,  23. 


io     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

her  of  freeholds,  and  by  the  extension  of  the  term  freehold 
the  suffrage  under  the  act  of  1430  was  thus  gradually  ex 
panded.1 

B.    THE    BOROUGH    AND    CORPORATION    FRANCHISE. 

While  the  suffrage  in  the  counties  was  based  upon  a  single 
and  uniform  legal  requirement,  there  existed  in  the  seven 
teenth  and  eighteenth  centuries  a  bewildering  variety  of 
qualifications  for  the  borough  and  corporation  suffrage 
franchise.  There  was  no  law  imposing  a  general  qualifica 
tion  upon  the  electors  in  these  places,  but  their  franchise  was 
fixed  by  local  custom,  by  royal  charters,  or  by  the  "  last  de 
termination"  of  the  House  of  Commons.2  The  right  of 
suffrage  might  extend  to  all  the  householding  inhabitants  of 
the  borough,  or  it  might  be  limited  solely  to  the  score  of 
officers  of  the  corporation;  it  might  include  hundreds  of 
resident  and  non-resident  freemen,  or  pertain  only  to  the 
holders  of  a  dozen  or  fifty  ancient  land-tenures;  in  some 
places  it  included  the  forty-shilling  freeholders,  in  others  the 
occupants  of  certain  original  houses,  often  little  more  than 
dilapidated  hovels,  in  others  still  every  potwalloper,  or  man 
boiling  his  own  pot,  had  the  right  to  vote.  For  the  sake  of 
clearness  a  short  statement  will  be  made  of  the  suffrage  under 
each  of  the  following  heads :  ( i )  The  inhabitant,  and  in- 
hab'ftant-householder  suffrage;  (2)  the  potwalloper  suf 
frage;  (3)  the  burgage  tenure  suffrage;  (4)  the  freeman 
suffrage;  (5)  the  corporation  suffrage;  and  (6)  the  univer 
sity  franchise.3 

i.  The  Inhabitant  and  Inhabitant-Householder  Franchise. 
This  was  the  broadest  borough  suffrage,  the  most  natural 

1  After   the    Reform    Act   of    1832   had   added    several    new    optional 
qualifications,  it  could  be  said  that  there  were  eighty-five  avenues  to 
the  suffrage,  most  of  which  led  to  the  county  franchise  through  various 
interpretations  of  the  term  freehold    (ibid.}. 

2  7  and  8  Wm.  Ill,  ch.  7 ;    2  Geo.  II,  ch.  24. 

3  This  analysis  is  nearly  identical  with  that  used  by  Porritt,   Unre- 
formed  House  of  Commons,  I,  chap.  III.    I  cheerfully  acknowledge  my 
indebtedness   to   this   writer    for    many   of   the    following    illustrations 
concerning  the  borough  suffrage. 


Parliamentary  Suffrage  in  England.  n 

one,  and  that  which  conformed  most  closely  to  the  early 
English  custom.  In  the  earliest  days  of  borough  representa 
tion,  it  is  probable  that  the  suffrage  included  all  the  legal 
burgesses,  and  these  are  believed  to  be  the  householding 
inhabitants  who  bore  a  part  in  the  taxes  and  other  burdens  of 
the  community, — in  other  words,  paid  scot  and  lot.1  This 
early  suffrage  continued  to  be  exercised  in  many  boroughs 
throughout  the  period  of  English  history  we  have  under  con 
sideration.  During  the  eighteenth  century  there  were  over 
fifty  boroughs  in  which  the  inhabitants,  or  inhabitant-house 
holders,  exercised  the  suffrage,  either  alone  or  in  conjunction 
with  other  classes  of  voters.2  In  some  cases  the  ancient  scot 
and  lot  provision  appears  to  have  been  lost,3  while,  on  the 
other  hand,  in  most  of  these  boroughs,  an  inhabitant  re 
ceiving  alms  could  not  act  as  an  elector.4  There  was  no 
general  residence  requirement  in  these  places  during  the 
period  we  are  studying,  and  not  until  after  the  American 
Revolution  was  there  a  compulsory  six  months'  residence 
before  the  election.5 

2.  The  Potwalloper  Franchise.  This  was  similar  to  the 
inhabitant-householder  franchise,  except  that  it  extended  the 
right  to  vote  to  those  who,  not  owning  or  renting  an  entire 
house,  yet  l;ad  a  separate  fireplace,  or  boiled  the  pot  for 
themselves  and  their  families.6  Potwallers  or  potwallopers, 
as  determined  in  one  contested  case,  were  "  persons  furnjsh- 
ing  their  own  diet,  whether  householders  or  only  lodgers."  7 
In  such  cases  usually  the  elector  must,  as  in  the  inhabitant- 
householder  boroughs,  be  assessed  for  the  local  taxes  (pay 
scot  and  lot);8  and,  generally  also,  those  receiving  alms 


1  Cox,  Antient  Parliamentary  Elections,  165-181. 

*  Kelly,  Essay  on  the  Elective  Franchise,  27-41  passim. 

3  Ibid. 

4  Oldfield,  History  of  Boroughs  (ed.  1794),  passim;    Grego,  History 
of  Parliamentary  Elections,  5. 

8  26  Geo.  Ill,  ch.  100. 

fl  Wallop  =  ebullirc,    infervcscere;     walling  =r  boiling    (Cox,    Antient 
Parliamentary  Elections,  191,  note). 

7  Kelly,  Elective  Franchise,  33. 

8  But  even  this  was  not  required  in  Honiton ;    Porritt,  I,  31. 


12    The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

were  excluded.  As  in  the  inhabitant  boroughs  there  was  no 
general  residence  qualification.1 

3.  The  Bur  gage  Tenure  Franchise.  A  burgage  tenure 
has  been  defined  as  land  or  tenements  lying  in  a  borough  and 
paying  to  the  king  or  other  lord  a  certain  annual  rental.2 
These  tenures  dated  back  hundreds  of  years  from  the  seven 
teenth  century,  and  often  formed  but  a  small  part  of  the 
land  of  a  populous  community.  Yet  to  them  and  them  alone 
in  many  towns  was  the  privilege  of  electing  members  of 
Parliament  attached. 

In  no  group  of  boroughs  did  the  suffrage  vary  more  than 
it  did  in  the  burgage  boroughs,  and  local  custom  here  seems 
to  have  done  its  best  to  bring  contusion"  info  the  elective 
system.  In  some  cases  the  right  to  vote  was  given  to  the 
freeholders  only  of  the  original  burgages,  as  in  Petersfield, 
where  the  electors  were  "  the  freeholders  of  lands,  or  ancient 
dwelling-houses  or  shambles  built  on  ancient  foundations ;"  3 
in  other  boroughs  the  franchise  was  vested  in  the  inhabitants 
of  the  ancient  tenures,  as  in  Weobley,  where  it  rested  upon 
the  "  inhabitants  of  certain  ancient  vote-houses  of  twenty 
shillings  per  annum  and  upwards,  residing  in  the  houses 
forty  days  before  the  election  and  paying  scot  and  lot,  and 
also  in  the  owners  of  such  houses  paying  scot  and  lot  and 
resident  in  the  houses  at  time  of  election."  4  Again  it  might 
be  the  leaseholders  for  a  certain  term  of  years,  or  even,  in 
two  cases,  the  copyholders  5  of  the  estates,  who  possessed  the 
right  to  vote.  There  was  a  similar  diversity  within  the 
thirty-nine  burgage  boroughs  respecting  the  residence  of 
voters.  In  Cricklade  6  and  Weobley  7  a  residence  of  forty 

1  In  only  three   boroughs,    apparently,   did   the   potwalloper   suffrage 
rest  upon  parliamentary  determination   (Tregony,  Honiton,  and  Taun- 
ton;    see  Oldfield,  Hist,  of  Boroughs,  I,  92,  171;    II,  53)  ;    probably  it 
existed  in  other  places  under  local  interpretations  of  the  words  inhabi 
tants  or  housekeepers. 

2  Coke,  Inst.,  I,  108  b,  109  a. 

8  Oldfield,  Boroughs,  I,  297.  4  Ibid.,  308. 

5  In  the  two  boroughs  of  Westbury  and   Cricklade  occur  the  only 
instances  known  of  the  suffrage  based  upon  copyholds   (Oldfield,  Bor 
oughs,  II,  216,  223). 

6  Porritt,  I,  34.  7  Oldfield,  Boroughs,  I,  308. 


Parliamentary  Suffrage  in  England.  13 

days  was  required  of  the  voter;  while  in  other  places  the 
vote-houses  were  occupied  only  a  few  days  before  the  elec 
tion  ; 1  and  in  others  still  no  residence  at  all  was  required,  or 
indeed  could  be  where,  as  at  Droitwich,  one  of  the  burgage- 
holds  was  in  the  middle  of  a  water  course.2 

The  attachment  of  the  suffrage  to  these  ancient  land- 
tenures  led  to  the  greatest  anomalies  of  the  English  repre 
sentative  system.  The  case  of  Old  Sarum  has  become 
famous ;  in  Westbury  the  twenty-four  tenures  comprised  one 
long  stone  wall ; 3  in  Calne  the  electors  were  of  the  same 
number,  all  possessing  a  right  of  common  in  a  certain  field ;  4 
in  Droitwich  the  members  of  the  corporation,  who  were  the 
sole  electors,  must  each  "  be  seized  in  fee  of  a  small  quantity 
of  salt  water  arising  out  of  a  pit."  5  The  number  of  the  \ 
burgage-holds  was  rarely  over  two  hundred ; 6  it  often  was  ) 
under  fifty ;  7  and  in  Old  Sarum  there  were  nominally  seven 
voters  for  the  two  members  of  Parliament.8 

4.  The  Freeman  Suffrage.  In  the  common  sense  in  which 
the  word  freeman  was  used  in  England  during  our  colonial 
period,  it  meant  that  the  person  so  called  was  accepted  into 
some  commercial  or  municipal  corporation  and  therefore 
was  free  to  exercise  all  the  privileges  and  franchises  of  the 
corporation.  In  this  sense  the  freemen  or  burgesses  of 
sixty-two  boroughs  9  possessed  either  the  exclusive  right  to 
elect  members  of  Parliament,  or  exercised  that  right  in  con 
junction  with  other  groups  of  electors.10 

There  were  many  ways  in  which  a  man  could  become  a 
freeman  of  the  English  boroughs.  He  might  be  admitted 

1  Porritt,  I,  35.  2  Ibid.,  37. 

8  Oldfield,  II,  216. 

4  Ibid.,  218.     The  same  requirement  of  participation  in  a  common 
field  is  found  in  Richmond   (ibid.,  II,  276). 

5  Ibid.,  261 ;    Porritt,  I,  36. 

6  There  were  330  in  Pomfret   (ibid.,  285),  270  in  Richmond    (ibid., 
276). 

7  Ibid.,  147,  160,  166,  192,  215,  216,  218,  281. 

8  Ibid.,  236. 

9  Porritt,  I,  30. 

10  The  former  was  the  more  common  custom,  but  for  instances  of  the 
latter  feature  see  Oldfield,  Boroughs,  I,  5,  106,  148,  253,  319,  350,  etc. 


14    The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

by  the  gift  and  direct  vote  of  those  who  were  already  free 
men,1  or  he  might  purchase  the  freedom ; 2  he  could  gain  it 
by  serving  an  apprenticeship,  usually  of  seven  years,  to  a  free 
man  in  the  borough,3  or  by  serving  to_a  freeman  of  the 
borough  anywhere ; 4  he  could  obtain  it  because  he  was  the 
son  of  a  freeman,5  or  the  heir  of  a  freeman ; 6  or  because  he 
was  the  eldest  son,7  or  the  youngest  son,8  or  a  son  born  after 
his  father  had  obtained  the  freedom ; 9  or  because  he  had 
married  a  freeman's  daughter,10  or  widow.11 

In  over  half  of  the  freeman  boroughs  a  local  attachment 
of  some  form  was  maintained,  either  by  the  relationship 
of  birth,  servitude  and  marriage,  or  by  the  more  definite 
one  of  residence.  But  in  more  than  a  third  of  the  bor 
oughs,  where  the  freedom  could  be  obtained  by  gift  of  the 
corporation  or  by  purchase,  even  residence  was  not  re 
quired.12  In  these  cases  the  freemen  could  dwell  in  any 
part  of  the  country,  and  simply  journey  to  the  town  whose 
freedom  they  possessed  at  the  time  of  the  election.13  The 

1  Porritt,  I,  58-66  passim;    Brooke,  Liverpool  during  last  Quarter  of 
Eighteenth  Century,  208. 

2  E.g.,  St.  Albans ;    Oldfield,  Boroughs,  I,  314;    Zacke,  Memorials  of 
Exeter,  38,  39. 

3  Ibid.;   Creighton,  Carlisle,  194;   in  Coventry,  see  Oldfield,  Boroughs, 

II,  173- 

4  When  the  apprentice  was  also  the  younger  son  of  a  freeman ;    in 
Nottingham  (Oldfield,  Boroughs,  II,  2). 

5  Ibid.,  I,  120,  314,  359;    II,  45,  312,  338. 

8  In  Exeter,  Zacke,  Memorials  of  Exeter,  39,  74. 

7  In   East   Retford,   Hastings,   Rye,   Richmond,   etc. ;     Oldfield,   Bor 
oughs,  II,  8,  301-304,  333;   Hist,  of  Richmond  (anon.),  120. 

8  In  Durham ;    Oldfield,  Boroughs,  I,  244. 

8  In  Newcastle-on-Tyne,  London,  Sudbury,  etc.;  ibid.,  I,  418,  380;  II, 

122. 

10  In   Ludlow,   Bristol,   Wells    (ibid.,  II,   39,  45,   5o),   Dover    (Kelly, 
Elective  Franchise,  57),  etc. 

11  In  Sandwich   (Kelly,  Elective  Franchise,  66). 

12  The  short  pamphlet  on  the  Elective  Franchise  by  Arthur  Kelly  is 
a  study  of  the  residence  and  non-residence  conditions  in  the  English 
boroughs;    see  passim,  especially  70,  71. 

13  So  many  freemen  of  various  boroughs  dwelt  in  London  that  some 
times  parliamentary  candidates  called  meetings  in  London  of  the  free 
men  of  the  respective  constituencies  (Porritt,  I,  63). 


Parliamentary  Suffrage  in  England.  15 

freeman  must  pay  the  local  taxes  of  scot  and  lot 1  in  some 
boroughs,  while  in  others  the  freemanship  admitted  to  the 
suffrage  such  irresponsible  persons  as  could  be  brought  from 
jails  or  work-houses.2     In  the  non-resident  freeman  bor 
oughs  the  greatest  election  evils  existed.      The  travelling 
expenses  of  non-residents  were  often  paid  by  the  candidates,! 
who  also  felt  themselves  under  the  necessity  of  furnishing\ 
refreshments  to  the  electors;    and  often  wholesale  admis 
sions  to  the  freemanship  were  made  upon  the  eve  of  an 
election.3 

5.  The  Restricted  Corporation  Franchise.  The  election 
evils  in  the  freeman  boroughs  usually  arose  by  reason  of  the 
extension  of  the  franchise  to  those  who  possessed  no  interest 
in  the  locality;  but  in  a  number  of  boroughs  the  right  of 
electing  members  of  Parliament  had  taken  a  different,  but 
equally  vicious  form, — an  election  by  a  group  of  corporation 
officers.  This  right,  like  the  status  of  freemen,  had  developed 
from  the  earlier  inhabitant-householder  franchise  of  the 
boroughs ; 4  and  in  this  case  it  was  often  strengthened  not 
only  by  local  custom  but  by  the  actual  grant  of  such  powers 
in  royal  charters  of  incorporation.  The  municipal  officers, 
also,  in  many  places  became  self-perpetuating  bodies,  thus 
bringing  them  still  farther  away  from  the  early  liberal  suf 
frage.  To  the  features  of  exclusive  control  of  elections  and 
of  self-perpetuation  there  was  often  added  the  equally  vicious 
principle  of  non-residence,  which  permitted  a  person  to  hold 
office,  even  the  office  of  mayor,  in  a  select  municipal  cor 
poration  without  entering  the  borough  once  a  year.5  Over 
forty  boroughs  elected  their  members  of  Parliament  in  this 
manner,  and  the  number  of  officers  or  select  burgesses  ac 
tually  participating  might  be  as  low  as  two.6  Usually,  how 
ever,  the  number  was  about  twenty-five,7  and  in  a  few  cases 


,  Boroughs,  I,  43,  112,  234,  312,  342;    II,  104,  117,  173,  etc. 

2  Porritt,  I,  69,  70. 

3  Ibid.,  58-84  passim. 

4  Cox,  Antient  Parliamentary  Elections,  186-190. 

5  Porritt,  Unref armed  House  of  Commons,  I,  53,  54. 
8  In  Castle  Rising ;    Oldfield,  Boroughs,  I,  409. 

7  Ibid.,  I,  25,  137,  293 ;    II,  24,  49,  126,  264,  274. 


1 6    The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

it  might  rise  to  almost  fifty.  In  the  town  of  Bath,  at  the 
close  of  the  eighteenth  century,  twenty-two  municipal  officers 
elected  the  two  members  to  represent  themselves  and  the 
other  thirty  thousand  inhabitants  of  the  borough. 

6.  The  University  Suffrage.  The  charters  of  James  I 
(1603)  conferred  the  right  of  election  of  members  of 
parliament  upon  the  chancellor,  masters  and  scholars  of 
each  university.1  Under  the  terms  of  these  charters,  the 
elections  became  limited  to  the  "  senates"  of  the  two  uni 
versities, — that  is,  to  those  who  were  masters  of  arts,  or 
doctors  in  one  of  the  three  faculties  of  divinity,  civil  law,  or 
physic,  and  who  retained  a  connection  by  residence  or  other 
wise  with  some  college  of  the  university.2 

The  suffrage  for  university  members  is  interesting  because 
it  furnishes  the  only  instance,  so  far  as  the  writer  knows, 
of  the  use  of  the  ballot  in  parliamentary  elections  before  the 
nineteenth  century.  The  written  ballot  or  "  scrutiny"  ap 
pears  to  have  been  used  at  an  early  date  in  the  elections  for 
university  officers ; 3  later  it  was  applied  to  the  elections  of 
members  of  Parliament;  and  in  1780,  it  was  even  held  up 
as  a  grievance 4  by  a  group  of  reformers  at  Cambridge.  In 
the  university  elections  no  other  qualifications  were  re 
quired  other  than  those  set  by  the  statutes  of  the  univer 
sity  respecting  membership  in  the  university  senate. 

1  The  words  of  the  charter  of  Cambridge  are  "  Praedicti  Cancellarius 
Magistri   et   Scholares   Universitatis   Cantebrigiae,   et   Successores   sui, 
Virtute  Praecepti,  Mandati,  seu  Processus  super  Breve  nostri,  Hsere- 
dum  et  Successorum  nostrorum  in  ea  Parte  debite  directi,  habeant  et 
habeunt  Potestatem,  Auctoritatem,  et  Facultatem  eligendi  et  nominandi 
duos  de  discretioribus  et  magis  sufficientibus  viris  de  praedicta  Univer- 
sitate  pro  tempore   existentibus   fore   Burgenses    Parliament*"    (Dyer, 
Privileges  of  Cambridge,  135,  136). 

2  For  further  details  see  the  calendars  of  the  universities. 
8Mullinger,  op.  cit.,  112;  Present  State  of  the  Universities  (London, 

1744),   I,   Oxford,  284,  288,  419.     The  ballots  were  burnt  after  the 
result  was  determined  (ibid.;   Cox,  Recollections  of  Oxford,  66).    The 
term  scrutiny  in  canon  law  meant  a  written  ballot. 
4  Porritt,  I,  102. 


CHAPTER    II. 
THE  SUFFRAGE  IN  VIRGINIA. 

The  first  twelve  years  of  Virginia's  history  present  few 
facts  on  the  American  side  of  the  Atlantic  for  the  student 
of  political  institutions.  The  early  life  of  the  colonists  was 
an  intense  physical  struggle  for  existence  in  which  rio  gen 
eral  political  consciousness  is  apparent.  The  terrible  con 
tests  with  the  fevers  of  the  river  valley,  the  struggle  against 
the  ever-impending  famine,  the  horrors  of  Indian  warfare, 
and  the  animosities  of  domestic  quarrels  together  left  scant 
opportunity  for  political  action;  while  the  arbitrary  powers 
granted  by  the  English  authorities  to  the  governors  and 
councillors  repressed  any  movement  towards  popular  gov 
ernment  which  might  have  arisen.  The  personal  and  epici, 
interests  are  aroused  by  the  facts  of  this  period,  but  there; 
is  practically  no  institutional  development. 

For  this  development  of  institutions  the  student  must  look 
at  the  Virgrjnj?  Company  of  London  and  the  royal  charters 
of  i6o6?  i6oq,  1612.  The  first  charter  left  the  control  of 
the  colony  largely  in  the  hands  of  the  king  or  his  ap 
pointees;  the  second  charter  shifted  the  responsibility  upon 
the  council  of  the  company;  and  the  third  one  gave  large 
powers  to  the  democratic  general  court  of  the  Virginia  Com 
pany.  Under  the  last  charter  quarterly  meetings 'of  all  the 
stockholders  could  be  held  for  the  consideration  ot  company 
affairs,  the  election  ot  officers,  the  making  ot  laws  tor  the 
colony,  the  hearing  ot  complaints  from  the  colony,  and  the 
admission  of  new  members.  When  it  is  remembered  that 
there  were  six  hundred  and  fifty- four  stockholders  in  1609, 
and  that  others  were  added  from  time  to  time,  it  will  be 
seen  that  these  meetings  of  the  Virginia  Company  were 
truthfully  spoken  of  as  a  "  seminary  to  a  seditious  parlia 
ment."  l 

A  large  party  in  the  newly  organized  company  of  1612 

1  Cooke,  Virginia,  114. 


1  8     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 


was   r^rnpngpH    of    Puritans,    anH    \\\\s    faction    gradually    jp- 

creased  in  power  in  the  succeeding-  ve^rs.  They  introduced 
the  democratic  ballot-box  in  place  of  viva-voce  voting  in 
their  company  ;  l  and  at  last  they  elected  as  chief  officer  of 
the  company  ("  treasurer"),  Sir  Edwin  Sandys,  who,  al 
though  an  attendant  of  the  established  church,  was  the  firm 
friend  of  the  Puritans.  The  election  of  Sandys  was  the 
culmination  of  a  struggle  between  the  faction  favoring  arbi 
trary  control  and  those  of  the  company  who  desired  a  more 
popular  form  of  government  in  the  colony.  Sandys  him 
self  was  known  to  favor  the  erection  "  of  a  free  state  in 
Virginia  ;"  2  and  while  he  held  the  office  of  assistant  treas 
urer,  a  "  great  charter  of  privileges"  was  ratified  at  a  quarter 
court  of  the  company  and  dispatched  to  the  colony  for  the 
guidance  of  the  governor  and  council  in  Virginia.3  Jn  this 
charter  there  is  found  the  origin  of  the  first  representative 
government  in  America. 

"^Yllilfi  thp-*g  Changes  haH  been  arrnmplishf^  in  the  organi 
zation   of  the   London    Company^    affairs   in    rhp   rnlony   frgH 

become  more  settled  and  its  permanence  was  now  assured. 
7"ne  improved  economic  condition  of  the  colony  in  1619 
made  the  new  popular  policy  of  the  Puritan  stockholders  of 
London  almost  a  necessity,  and  contributed  largely  to  its 
success^  TJip  instrnrtinns  pf  ifinfi  tn  th^  first  fonnrill^rs  £?f 
tfce  colony  g-avf  authority  to  foe  rn^nrilWc  n^d  prprid^pt 
to  "  govern.  ruleT  and  r°mm^^^  ^11  th**  p-apt-aing  ^n^j  c^]_ 
diers^and  all  other  of  his  Majesty's  subjects  of  his  colony," 
according  to  the  terms  of  the  king's  instructions.4  For^ 
three  years  after  the  landing-  in  Ma)7",  16^7,  tha  nH^ny  diH 
not  possess  even  a  definite  code  of  law$»  but  was  governed 
by  the  councillors^  or  the  strongest  nnq"  among  therrT^Tjing 
of  these  councillors  apparently  intended  to  call  a  "  parlia 
ment"  of"  the  colonists,  but  was  prevented  from  domg~so 
by  the  arrival  of  new  instructions.5  This  is  the  period  of 

1  Neill,   Virginia  Company  of  London,  189,  204.     Brown,  First  Re 
public  in  America,  305,  307. 

2  Brown,  First  Republic,  251. 

8  November  28,  1618,  Brown,  First  Republic,  293. 

4  Neill,  Virginia  Company  of  London,  4-8. 

8  According  to  Wingfield,  in  Brown,  First  Republic,  55. 


The  Suffrage  in  Virginia.  19 

quarrels  among  the  councillors  anrj  tfre  final  election  of  John 
Smith,  or, — shall  we  say, — his  assumption  of  control . 
After  the  lifting  of  Smith's  strong  hand,  more  quarrels  of 
the  councillors  took  place;  until  at  last  the  arrival  of  Gov 
ernor  Delaware  with  his  broad  personal  powers  in  govern 
ment  1  put  an  end  to  the  council  jealousies. 

(The  colony  now  entered  upon  the  ^second  stage  of  its 
political  history.  The  first  had  been  the  troublous  times 
under  a  plural  executive!  the  new  era  saw  tbp  ffnvpmnr  a 
rfftty  Hpsrinf  i"  f^  Colony  bringing  order  out  of  confusion, 
repressing  factions  by  retaining  the  government  in  his  own 
hands,  but  yet  ruling-  arrnrrling  tn  known  la.iv^  Up  to  1610^ 
tfap  mlnny  VnH  pvRF?FFH  n^7  l^gnl  rod0,  even  of  a  criminal 
nature,  except  the  occasional  instructions  given  to  the  coun 
cillors.  For  three  years  the  colonists  had  been  mmpellpH  jo 
conform  to  the  whim  or  will  of  the  councillors.  From  1610 
to  1619  the  governors  and  the  councils  appointed  by  them 
had  arbitrary  power,  but  this  was  used,  in  general,  according 
to  published  regulations.2  Wjthin  this  period  of  nine  years 
the  colony  prospered,  increased  in  population,  and  at  last 
the  colonists  solved  the  economic  problem  of  making  the 
vast  natural  re.sn«rrps  nf  Virginin  mppf  tfip  rmark  nf  Knrft- 
peans. 

At  this  point,  when  the  economic  life  was  broadening,  and 
whgn  it  would  soon  have  come  into  conflict  with  the  arbi 
trary  powers  of  the  governor,  the  colony  rprfiivfrl  frn™  T_nn- 
don  the  instructions  for  the  holding-  of  a  representative 
qjSfjernrfly! The  Virginia  Company  of  London  held  one  of 
its  quarterly  courts  or  meetings  on  November  28,  1618,  and 
agreed  upon  the  following  measures : 

"  I.  The  great  charter  of  privileges,  orders,  and  Laws,  which  had 
been  previously  drafted,  and  considered,  was  ratified,  signed,  and 
directed  to  the  Governor  and  the  Council  of  Estate  in  Virginia." 

1  See  Lord  De  la  Warr's  commission  in  Brown,  Genesis  of  United 
States,  I,  375  «• 

2  See  Laws  of  Gates,  Delaware,  and  Dale  in  Force's  Tracts,  III,  No.  2. 
There  are  twenty-four  capital  crimes  according  to  these  laws,   some 
religious  rules,  and  some  sanitary  measures ;   but  no  constitutional  pro 
visions  whatever. 


2O     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

"  II.  The  commission  for  establishing  the  Council  of  Estate  and  the 
general  Assembly  (two  Burgesses  out  of  every  Plantation),  wherein 
their  duties  were  described  to  the  life." 

"  III.  Sundry  instructions"  for  governor,  council,  and  colony. 


the  action  of  the  radical  members  of  the 
Virginia  Company  the  foundation  was  laid  for  popular  gov 
ernment  in  the  colony. 

It  is  generally  believed  that  the  privileges  and  orders  of 
1618  were  similar  to  those  given  to  Governor  Wyatt  in 
1  62  1.1  The  latter  document  is  called  "An  Ordinance  and 
Constitution  of  the  Treasurer,  Council,  and  Company  in 
England,  for  a  Council  of  State  and  General  Assembly,"  2 
and  in  it  the  Company  authorities  expressed  their  intention  of 
establishing  a  form  of  government  in  the  colony  which  would 
be  of  the  "  greatest  benefit  and  comfort"  to  the  people,  and 
would  keep  "off  as  much  as  possible"  all  "  injustice,  griev 
ances,  and  oppression."  It  provided  also  for  a  general  as 
sembly  composed  of  the  council  of  state  and  "  two  burgesses 
out  of  every  town,  hundred,  or  other  particular  plantation, 
to  be  respectively  chosen  by  the  inhabitants." 

Governor  YeardleyT  with  the  instructions  for  an  assembly. 
arrived  in  the  colony  early  in  i6iQ,  and  shortly  afterwards 
issued  a  proclamation  announcing  that  the  services  due  to 
the  company  would  be  remitted  to  all  persons  who  had  come 
before  April,  1616,  that  the  former  cruel  laws  had  been 
abrogated,  and  that  a  share  in  government  was  to  be  given 
to  the  colonists.3  He  said, 

"  And  that  they  might  have  a  hand  in  the  governing  of  themselves,  it 
was  granted  that  a  General  Assembly  should  be  held  yearly  once, 
whereat  were  to  be  present  the  Governor  and  Counsel!,  with  two  Bur- 
-  gesses  from  each  Plantation  freely  to  be  elected  by  the  inhabitants 
thereof  ;  this  Assembly  to  have  power  to  make  and  ordaine  whatsoever 
laws  and  orders  should  by  them  be  thought  good  and  proffittable  for 
our  subsistence." 

1  Brown,  First  Republic,  293.    Brown  even  thinks  that  similar  instruc 
tions  were  given  to  Governor  Delaware. 
*Hening,  Statutes  at  Large  of  Virginia,  I,  110-113. 
a  Brown,  First  Republic,  312. 


The  Suffrage  in  Virginia.  21 

Tn    accordance  with   thp   terms   pf  ffris   proclamation   the 
famQUS   first   feprespntativp   assembly   mpf    in  .  t^fi   rVinrrh    at 

lamestown.  The  facts  concerning  this  assembly  have  been 
told  so  frequently  and  so  well  that  it  would  be  presumption 
to  repeat  them  here.  We  are,  however,  interested  in  the 
suffrage  for  this  assembly,  and  can  but  regret  that  the  details 
concerning  the  election  are  so  meagre.  The  governor's  proc 
lamation  had  declared  all  "  inhabitants"  to  be  electors,  but 
there  is  no  certainty  of  meaning  attaching  to  the  word. 
Brown  in  one  place  makes  inhabitants  synonymous  with 
"  planters,"  while  in  another  case  he  says  that  suffrage 
"  was  general."  1  Another  writer  holds  that  "  all  the  sej- 
tlers  had  a  voice  in  public  affairs,  first  in  the  daily  matters 
of  the  hundreds,  and  after  1619  in  electing  burgesses."  2 
I  have  found  no  contemporary  description  of  the  votinj 
glass  othgr  than  the  word  inhabitants,  or  the  still  more  vague 
statement  that  burgesses  were  elected  "  by  the  major  part 
of  voices;"3  but  from  later  legislation  it  seems  apparent 
that  all  free  men  not  bound  to  service  had  the  right  to  vote.  * 
For,  when  the  assembly  in  1646  levied  a  fine  upon  freemen 
who  did  not  vote,  they  thought  it  necessary  to  state  that  this 
fine  should  not  be  collected  from  freemen  who  were  cov-  ,/ 
enanted  servants,  thus  extending  compulsory  voting  through 
out  the  whole  class  of  free  laborers  and  planters.4  Another 
later  act  was  based  upon  the  principle  of  the  union  of  tax- 
paying  and  political  rights ; 5  but  it  is  unlikely  that  such  a 
definite  theory  was  held  in  the  time  of  the  first  assembly. 
It  seems  tf11p  tliat  a11  "^  rot  bound  to  service  were  pnviA 
leged  to  vote  in  the  first  and  subsequent  earlv  elections. 
As  we  are  in  doubt  concerning  the  persons  who  held  the 

1  Brown,  First  Republic,  616,  315. 

a  Cooke,  Virginia,  223. 

8  This  phrase  was  applied  to  the  election  of  1624,  Brown,  First  Re 
public,  570.  Rolfe  in  his  account  merely  said  that  burgesses  were 
"chosen  in  all  places;"  and  the  journal  of  the  assembly  said  "two  Bur 
gesses  elected  out  of  each  Incorporation  and  Plantation;"  N.  Y.  Hist. 
Soc.  Coll.,  Second  Series,  III,  332,  335- 

4  Chapter  XX,  1646,  Hening,  I,  333~4- 

6  Ch.  XVI  of  March,  1655-6,  Hening,  I,  403.  Discussed  more  fully  in 
the  following  pages. 


L 


22     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

franchise  in  these  early  days,  so  the  manner  of  voting  is 
by  no  means  clear.  Brown  quotes  the  Virginia  Company 
records  as  requiring  the  "  principall  officers  in  Va.  To  be 
chosen  by  balloting  box;"  l  but  it  is  not  believed  that  this 
formal  method  was  used.  Viva  voce  voting  is  implied  in  the 
phrase  "  major  part  of  voices,"  used  in  1624,  and  by  the 
writs  requiring  personal  attendance  at  the  elections.2  On 
the  other  hand,  it  is  plain  that  sjome  form  of  proxies,  or 
"  subscribing  of  hands,"  was  used,  and  sometimes  this  was 
sojgeneral  that  "  it  happeneth  that  few  or  none  (ioe  appears 
personally  according  to  the  summons."  3  In  what  form 
this  "  handwriting"  was  produced  is  not  stated.  It  might 
have  been  gained  by  candidates  or  their  friends  as  signa 
tures  to  papers;  it  may  have  been  in  the  form  of  proxies, 
as  in  the  neighboring  colony  of  Maryland;  the  names  may 
have  been  taken  by  the  sheriff  as  he  went  from  settlement 
to  settlement  giving  the  legal  warning  of  the  election  at 
each  house ;  or  the  votes  may  have  been  in  the  form  of  indi 
vidual  ballots.  The  custom,  in  whatever  form,  probably  was 
furthered  by  the  act  of  1639-40,  which  said,  "  No  sheriff 
to  compell  any  man  to  go  off  the  plantation  where  he  lives 
to  choose  burgisses ;"  4  for,  since  several  plantations  made 
up  a  county,5  the  sheriff  would  be  obliged  to  adopt  some 
proxy  system  or  other  method  of  collecting  the  votes  from 
the  different  plantations. 

first  a^pmhly^  nlmniit  tnn  y^nrn  pninH  hofnrr  the 
p  sysfarp  was  pprrp?r>^nf1y  ^HnptgH  Governor 
Wyat{,  who  succeeded  Yeardley,  kept  up  the  assembly  sys 
tem;  at  first  issuing  regular  writs  according  to  the  com- 
pany's  instructions,  and  later,  after  the  Virginia  Company's 

1  First  Republic,  315.     It  is  more  likely  that  this  requirement  related 
to  the  election  of  colony  officers  by  the  Company  in  its  London  meetings. 

2  Hening,  I,  333. 
1  Ibid. 

4  Ibid.  ,227. 

5  Counties  were  erected  and  became  the  formal  unit  of  representation 
in  1634.     But  the  burgesses  from  a  county  may  have  continued  to  be 
elected  by  the  plantations  within  the  county  instead  of  by  the  county 
at  large.     There  can  be  no  doubt  this   was  true  of  some  parishes; 
Hening,  I,  154,  250,  277. 


The  Suffrage  in  Virginia.  23 

charter  had  been  forfeited,  he  discussed  public  affairs  in 
meetings  of  "  The  Governor,  Council,  and  Colony  of  Vir 
ginia  assembled  together."  l  In  spite  nf  petitions  frorq  frig 
aeople  praying-  that  no  military  government  he  established 
over  them.2  and  in  spite  of  Governor  Yeardley's  request  that 
he  be  allowed  to  call  an  assembly  and  have  officers  elected 
by  the  people,3  neither  King  James  in  1624,  nor  Charles  in 
his  first  commission  for  the  government  of  Virginia,  granted 
any  popular  political  features.4  fcjit  flip  colonists  petitioned 

against   t^p   t0^arrn   mnnnpnly    frnrlpg   haH    o-rartfpH,    and   in 

the  fall  of  1627  Charles  sent  out  instructions  for  the  dftrtifrn 
nf  assprpfrlyrripri  in  ty  rnlgny  In  accordance  with  this 
permission  the  first  assembly  under  royal  authority  was  held 
in  March,  i627~8,5  and  thereafter  the  representative  system 
was  to  continue  with  slight  interruptions  until  the  revolution 
of  1776. 

Tfae  next  interesting"  fart  concern  ing  the  si  iff  raw  is  the 
attempt  of  the  people  to  extend  the  elective  principle  from 
the  choice  of  the  legislature  to  fhp  rhm'rp 


officer.     It  was  not  an  nrmsna.1  thing  in  the  colonies  for  a 

action  is  seen  gm'te  fregnnitty  in  tb?  NPW  England  sptjj**- 
ments  ;  inJWest  Jersey  there  is  a  succession  of  elected  execu- 
tTvgs  *  on^Long  Island  Occurred  the  short  and  strange  career 
of  President  John  Scott;  in  Maryland  and  the  Carolinas 
other  instances  can  be  found;  while  in  Virginia  itself  the 
assumption  of  power  by  John  Smith  in  1608  was,  in  fact,  a 
popular  choice  of  the  most  powerful  of  the  councillors.  In 
1635  this  popular  choice  is  seen,  when  the  people  "thrust 
out"  an  obnoxious  English  governor,  John  Harvey,  and  put 


1  Brown,  First  Republic,  647.    For  these  early  assemblies,  see  Hening, 
I,  119-136;    Neill,  Virginia  Company,  274-5;    Brown,  First  Republic, 
458,  647,  648;    Neill,  Virginia  Carolorum,  55. 

2  Ibid.,  573- 

3  Neill,  Va.  Carolorum,  27. 

4  See  the  Commissions  in  Hazard,  Historical  Collections,  I,  183-205, 
230-234. 

6  Neill,  Va.  Carolorum,  55 ;    Brown,  First  Republic,  648 ;    Hening,  I, 
134-136. 


24     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

in  his  place  one  Captain  John  West.  West,  in  explaining 
his  election  to  the  English  government,  said, 

"  The  counsell  with  one  consent  were  so  pleased  as  to  fasten  their 
votes  on  mee  to  wch  the  peoples  suffrages  as  willingly  condiscended ;"  * 

It  is  not  likely  that  the  election  of  West  was  a  formal  matter 
on  the  part  of  the  people.  Previous  meetings  of  discontented 
persons  had  been  held,2  and  it  is  probable  that  after  the 
council  had  selected  Captain  West  the  choice  was  submitted 
to  the  burgesses  and  the  people  present  for  ratification.  It 
is  scarcely  necessary  to  say  that  Charles  I.  would  suffer  no 
such  assumption  of  "  regal  power,"  as  he  termed  the  action 
of  the  colonists;  Harvey  must  be  sent  back,  if  only  for  a 
day,  to  maintain  the  royal  authority.3  While  there  was  no 
choice  for  the  Virginians  but  to  accept  the  governor,  yet 
fortunately  for  them  his  new  administration  lasted  only  a 
short  time. 

During  the  first  twenty  years  there  was  no  permanent 
unit  of  representation.  Up  to  1634  the  country  was  divided 
into  plantations,4  and  each  of  these  was  originally  entitled 
to  send  two  representatives;  but  later  some  of  the  planta 
tions  were  grouped  into  hundreds,  and  from  one  to  four 
burgesses  came  from  each  hundred  or  plantation  or  "  cor 
poration."  5  In  1634  the  colony  was  divided  into  eight 

1  Neill,   Virginia  Carolorum,  129;    see  also,  ibid.,  116-133;    Hening, 
I,  223;    Va.  Mag.  of  History,  III,  21-34;  VIII,  147  «,  398  ff. 

2  Neill,  Va.  Carolorum,  119.     De  Vries,  who  stopped  in  Virginia  in 
May,   1635,  said  a  new  governor  had  been  made  by  the  council  and 
people. 

3  Neill,    Virginia   Carolorum,   126. 

*  A  plantation  was  generally  a  settlement  made  by  servants  or  free 
laborers  under  the  direction  of  some  one  person  who  had  received  a 
large  land  grant.  Under  such  circumstances  the  elections  must  have 
been  in  the  control  of  the  local  proprietor ;  and  in  the  first  assembly 
the  burgesses  from  one  plantation  were  called  Mr.  Martin's  burgesses 
(N.  Y.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.,  2d  Ser.,  Ill,  338,  344). 

6  The  list  of  burgesses  to  the  assembly  of  February,  1632-3,  shows  this 
irregularity;  Hening,  I,  202-3.  See  also  Chandler,  Representation  in 
Virginia,  J.  H.  U.  Studies,  XIV,  Nos.  6-7,  6-14. 


The  Suffrage  in  Virginia.  25 

counties,1  which  were  made  the  new  units  of  representation ; 
yet  for  many  years  after  this  time  the  burgesses  are  spoken 
of  as  coming  from  the  several  plantations.2  No  definite 
number  was  at  first  given  to  each  county,  but  the  actual 
representation  varied  from  one  to  eight  burgesses  for  a 
county;  and  the  total  number  of  burgesses  in  the  assem 
blies  meeting  between  the  years  1634  to  1662  varied  from 
eighteen  to  forty- four,  the  number  of  counties  meanwhile 
growing  from  eight  to  eighteen.  Later  legislation  fixed  the 
number  of  burgesses  for  each  county  at  four,3  and  still  later 
it  was  reduced  to  two.4 

It  is  not  believed  that  the  early  county  burgesses  were 
always  elected  at  large,  but  that  in  some  counties  they  con 
tinued  for  a  time  to  be  elected  by  the  plantations  or  par 
ishes.  The  act  of  1639-40  forbidding  sheriffs  to  compel 
any  man  to  go  off  his  plantation  to  choose  burgesses  has 
already  been  quoted,  but  the  exact  meaning  of  the  act  is 
obscure.5  As  early  as  February,  1631-2,  parishes  are  men 
tioned  as  a  representative  unit ; 6  and  later,  when  some  of 
the  counties  were  divided  into  parishes,  each  parish  w; 
permitted  to  choose  a  burgess  or  burgesses  within  its  own 
limits.7  Until  1662  it  was  permissible  for  any  parish  to 
send  its  own  burgesses  if  it  desired  to  do  so,  although  after 
1656  the  wages  of  such  "parochial"  burgesses  were  to  be 

1  Hening,  I,  224 ;    Brown,  English  Politics  in  Early  Virginia  History, 

100. 

2  Hening,  I,  239,  282,  208,  373,  379,  527- 

8  Hening,  I,  299-300,  act  of  Nov.,  1645.  James  City  County  was  per 
mitted  to  elect  five  burgesses  for  the  county  and  one  for  the  city. 

4  Hening,  II,  20,  106;  acts  of  1660-1,  1661-2.  See  also  act  of  1669 
making  the  sending  of  two  burgesses  compulsory;  and  that  of  1670 
laying  a  fine  of  10,000  pounds  of  tobacco  upon  counties  refusing  to 
elect  (Hening,  II,  272,  282). 

6  Hening,  I,  227.     Hening  found  only  abstracts  of  the  laws  of  this 
session. 

'Hening,  I,  153,  179. 

7  Hening,  I,  249,  250,  251,  277.    I  have  not  found  the  original  act  giving 
general  power  to  all  parishes  to  choose  burgesses;    but  the  preamble 
of  an  act  of  1656  says  that  "  by  a  former  act  of  Assembly  priviledge 
was  granted  to  any  parish  to  send  one  or  two  Burgesses."     Hening, 
I,  421. 


26     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

paid  by  the  parishes  electing  them.1  The  vestry  of  the 
parish  had  the  power  of  determining  if  parochial  burgesses 
should  be  elected,  and,  when  requested,  the  sheriff  of  the 
county  was  compelled  by  law  to  attend  such  parish  elec 
tions.2  While  parish  burgesses  were  thus  permitted, — and 
no  doubt  in  many  cases  were  elected, — they  were  chosen  for 
the  "  particular  occasion"  of  the  parish,3  and  the  county 
paid  only  for  the  usual  number  of  burgesses  as  formerly.4 
It  may  be  that  the  distinction  between  parish  and  county 
burgesses  is  only  another  expression  for  our  modern  ideas 
of  election  by  general  ticket  and  by  districts.  James  City 
(Jamestown)  received  the  right  to  send  one  burgess  in 
i645,5  and  continued  to  exercise  this  privilege  until  the 
Revolution.  The  promise  was  also  made  in  1662  that 
every  county  which  would  lay  out  a  town  of  one  hundred 
acres  and  people  it  with  one  hundred  tithable  persons  should 
have  the  right  to  another  representative.6 

Returning  now  to  our  main  topic  of  the  suffrage,  it  is 
noteworthy  that  a  quarter  of  a  century  elapsed  after  the 
assembly  of  1619  before  a  single  important  act  was  passed 
bearing  upon  the  suffrage.  The  subject  came  up  in  1646, 
owing  to  the  inconveniences  which  were  occasioned  "  by  dis 
orderly  and  illegal  election  of  Burgesses,  by  subscribing  of 
hands  contrary  to  the  warrant."  7  The  act  then  forbade 
the  use  of  handwriting,  and  imposed  a  fine  upon  those  who 
did  not  appear  to  vote.  It  was  ordered 

"  That  noe  election  shall  be  made  of  any  Burgesse  or  Burgesses  but 
by  a  plurality  of  voices  and  that  no  hand  writing  shall  be  admitted : 
Be  it  alsoe  further  inacted,  That  what  freeman  soever  haveing  lawful 
sumons  of  the  time  and  place  for  election  of  Burgesses  that  shall  not 
make  repaire  accordingly,  Such  person  or  persons  vnless  there  be  law- 
full  cause  for  the  absenting  himselfe  shall  forfeit  100  Ib.  of  tob'o.  for 
his  non-appearance  ffreemen  being  covennt.  servants  being  exempted 

1  Hening,  I,  421. 
2Hening,  I,  520,  545. 
8  Hening,  I,  421. 
4  Ibid. 
8  Ibid.,  300. 
'Hening,  II,  106. 
7j  Hening,  I,  333-4. 


The  Suffrage  in  Virginia.  27 

from  the  said  fine  to  be  levyed  by  distresse  in  case  of  refusall  and  is  to 
be  disposed  of  towards  the  defraying  of  the  Burgesses  charges  in  the 
county." 

Thus,  under  a  penalty  of  a  fine  of  one  hundred  pounds  of 
tobacco,  compulsory  viva  voce  voting  was  imposed  upon  all 
freemen  who  were  not  covenanted  servants.  •The  act  shows  1  .4  4 
clearly  that  manhood  suffrage  was  the  rule  in  early  Vir 
ginia  as  it  was  in  early  Maryland. 

The  next  suffrage  question  arises  out  of  the  civil  war  in 
England.  Berkeley  and  the  Virginians  had  shown  their 
loyalty  to  the  Stuart  family,  and  in  September,  1651,  the 
English  Council  of  State  appointed  four  commissioners  to 
reduce  the  plantations  along  Chesapeake  Bay.1  The  instruc 
tions  of  the  commissioners  directed  them  to  offer  a  general 
pardon,  and  to  permit  the  election  of  burgesses  by  "  those 
taking  the  oath  to  be  true  and  faithful  to  the  Commonwealth 
of  England,  without  a  King  or  House  of  Lords."  2  On 
March  12,  1651-2,  the  governor,  council,  and  assembly  sur 
rendered  the  government  on  favorable  terms  to  the  commis 
sioners.3  The  inhabitants  were  offered  the  new  oath  to 
Parliament,  and  a  few  weeks  after  the  surrender  elections 
were  held  for  assemblymen.4  The  oath  was  widely  taken; 
in  Northumberland  County  alone  one  hundred  and  seventy- 
five  persons  subscribing  to  it,  and  the  first  assembly  under 
the  commonwealth  was,  with  one  exception,  the  largest 
which  had  met  since  1632.  tFor  the  next  nine  years  the 
assembly  of  the  colony  "was  practically  supreme,  not  only 
performing  acts  of  legislation,  but  electing  the  governors 
and  other  general  and  county  officers.5  They  exercised  the 
powers  of  the  Long  Parliament  of  England  without  the 
monarchical  restraint  of  a  Cromwell. 

During  the  Commonwealth  period  an  attempt  was  made 
to  change  the  existing  broad  basis  of  the  suffrage.  An  act 

1  McMahon,  Hist,  of  Maryland,  204. 

2Neill,  Virginia  Carolorum,  218.    For  exact  words  of  oath,  see  ibid., 
J22i,  note  2.    The  same  form  of  oath  was  administered  in  Maryland. 
"Hening,  I,  363-368;    Neill,  Virginia  Carolorum,  221-224. 
4  Neill,  Virginia  Carolorum,  224. 
6  Hening,  I,  358-9,  note ;    369,  note ;   371-2. 


28     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

of  March,  1654-5,  limited  the  suffrage  to  housekeepers,  and 
allowed  no  more  than  one  voter  in  each  family.1  It  pro 
vided 

"  That  all  housekeepers  whether  freeholders,  lease  holders,  or  other 
wise  tenants,  shall  onely  be  capeable  to  elect  Burgesses,  and  none 
hereby  made  vncapable  shall  give  his  subscription  to  elect  a  Burgesse 
vpon  the  pennalty  of  four  hundred  pounds  of  tobacco  and  cask  to  be 
disposed  of  by  the  court  of  each  county  where  such  contempt  shall  be 
vsed :  Provided  that  this  word  housekeepers  repeated  in  this  act  extend 
no  further  then  to  one  person  in  a  family." 

Perhaps  growing  out  of  the  experience  of  the  last  few  years  2 
the  burgesses  were  now  required  to  be  "  persons  of  knowne 
integrity  and  of  good  conversation,  and  of  the  age  of  one 
&  twenty  years."  3  It  was  made  the  sheriff's  duty,  by  him 
self  or  deputy,  to  go  from  house  to  house  and  warn  all  per 
sons  interested  in  elections  of  the  time  and  place  of  choosing 
burgesses;  and  the  viva  voce  provision  of  the  act  of  1646, 
whereby  the  burgesses  were  elected  by  the  "  plurality  of 
voices,"  was  now  changed  to  an  election  "  by  subscription 
and  of  the  major  part  of  the  hands  of  the  electors." 

The  limitation  of  the  suffrage  to  housekeepers  did  not 
long  continue.  The  next  legislature,  adopting  to  the  full 
the  English  ideas  of  taxation  and  representation,  in  March, 
1655-6,  declared  that  "  we  conceive  it  something  hard  and 
vnagreeable  to  reason  that  any  persons  shall  pay  equall 
taxes  and  yet  have  no  votes  In  election."  4  They  therefore 
repealed  that  part  of  the  earlier  act  which  "  excludes  freemen 
from  voters,"  but  they  required  the  voters  to  "  fairly  give 

1Hening,  I,  411-412. 

2  In  1652  two  persons  were  ejected  from  the  house,  one  for  scandalous 
libel,  and  the  other  for  mutinous  declarations.  A  minister  was  also 
excluded  from  the  assembly  in  the  following  year,  and  the  subscribers 
to  a  certain  mutinous  paper  were  forbidden  to  hold  office.  Hening,  I, 
374,  378,  380. 

8  This  clause  is  drawn  literally  from  Article  XVII  of  the  English 
Instrument  of  Government  of  1653. 

*  Hening,  I,  403.  In  1659  tithables  were  all  white  male  servants  of 
any  age  imported  into  the  colony,  all  imported  negroes,  male  or  female, 
all  Indian  servants  over  sixteen  years  of  age,  and  all  Christian  (white) 
males  over  sixteen. 


The  Suffrage  in  Virginia.  29 

their  votes  by  subscription  and  not  in  a  tumultuous  way." 
The  policy  of  manhood  suffrage  was  expressed  still  more 
definitely  by  the  assembly  in  March,  1657-8,  when  they  per 
mitted  "  all  persons  inhabiting  in  this  collonie  that  are  free 
men  to  have  their  votes  in  the  election  of  Burgesses."  *  It 
need  scarcely  be  remarked  that  the  word  freemen  as  used 
here  means  free  man,  and  has  no  connotation  of  memberships 
in  corporations  such  as  it  contains  in  the  northern  colonies.  • 
This  was  manhood  suffrage  extending  to  all  adult  males 
who  were  not  slaves  or  indentured  servants;  and  all  the 
voters,  too,  were  taxpayers,  for  the  poll-tax  was  levied  upon 
all  males  over  sixteen  years  of  age. 

By  the  speedy  repeal  of  the  limiting  act  the  commonwealth 
government  in  Virginia  showed  its  regard  for  universal 
suffrage.  During  these  years  the  government  of  Virginia 
was  practically  a  republic,  with  the  legislature  exercising 
supreme  power.  Yet  after  electing  three  governors,  the 
assembly  took  the  strange  step  of  electing  a  council  of  state  */ 
for  life,  and  providing  for  the  election  of  the  governor  from 
among  the  life  councillors ; 2  but,  fortunately,  the  council 
refused  to  accept  the  honor,  and  the  next  assembly  passed  an 
act  "  for  the  annihilation  of  councillors."  3  At  the  same 
time  they  declared  that  the  "  supreme  power  of  the  govern 
ment"  was  resident  in  the  assembly,  and  in  their  second  act 
elected  Sir  William  Berkeley  as  governor.4 

After  the  restoration  of  Charles  II.  there  was  no  imme 
diate  change  in  the  government.  Berkeley  was  accepted  as 
royal  governor  and  was  directed  by  his  instructions  to  call 
assemblies  according  to  the  usages  of  the  colony.5  These 
instructions  were  carried  out  to  the  letter,  and  elections  and 
the  suffrage  were  practically  unchanged;  indeed  it  may  be 
said  that  popular  suffrage  scarcely  existed  until  1676,  for  , 
fifteen  years  passed  without  an  election  of  assemblymen. 

1  Hening,  I,  475. 

2  Hening,  I,  517;    March,  1658-9.    The  new  organization  of  the  coun 
cil  was  very  likely  suggested  by  that  of  the  English  Council  of  State. 

8  Hening,  I,  537. 

4  Hening,  I,  530. 

5  Dated  September  12,  1662 ;    Hazard,  Historical  Collections,  II,  607- 
611;    Virginia  Historical  Magazine,  III,  15. 


30     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

Berkeley's  "  long  parliament"  in  Virginia  almost  equalled 
in  duration  its  English  namesake.  Some  minor  changes  in 
county  representation  and  the  abolition  of  the  parochial 
burgesses  made  in  1661  and  1662  have  already  been  men 
tioned.1  The  fear  that  some  candidates  for  the  assembly 
might  promise  to  serve  for  low  wages  led  the  assembly  in 
1 66 1  and  1662  to  fix  a  regular  daily  allowance  of  one  hun 
dred  and  fifty  pounds  of  tobacco  for  each  member,  in  order 
that  "  diverse  heart  burnings"  might  be  allayed,  and  in 
terested  persons  might  not  "  purchase  votes  by  offering  to 
undertake  the  place  at  low  rates  and  by  that  means  make 
the  place  both  mercenary  and  contemptible."  2 

The  subjects  of  taxation  and  the  suffrage  appear  to  have 
been  mingled  in  an  attempt  made  in  1663  to  abolish  the 
poll-tax,  but  the  exact  form  of  the  contest  is  not  clear. 
Burk  3  thinks  that  there  was  an  effort  to  change  the  basis 
of  taxation  to  property  and  at  the  same  time  limit  the  suf 
frage  to  freeholders.  If  this  were  the  aim  of  a  party  in  the 
assembly,  it  met  with  no  immediate  success. 

In  1670,  however,  a  decided  change  from  universal  suf 
frage  was  made,  and  the  first  step  taken  towards  elections 
by  a  definite  propertied  class.  The  preamble  of  the  act  of 
October,  i67O,4  shows  the  fear  universal  suffrage  would 
bring  certain  evils  into  the  elective  system,  and  that  this  belief 
had  worked  a  change  in  the  opinions  of  the  assembly  since 
the  days  when  it  was  held  that  tax-paying  and  political  privi 
leges  should  go  hand  in  hand.  It  is  probable,  too,  that  a 
change  in  the  personnel  of  the  assembly  had  taken  place,  and 
that  the  wealthier  planters  had  more  weight  now  than  in 
the  commonwealth  period ;  while  the  emigrant  cavaliers  who 
had  fled  to  Virginia  during  the  Cromwellian  rule  were  now 
directly  influencing  politics.5  The  reasons  for  the  passage 

1  Ante,  p.  25. 

2  Hening,  II,  23.     In  the  year  1663  a  burgess  who  was  charged  with 
sympathy  for  the  Quakers  and  opposition  to  the  baptism  of  children 
was  dismissed  from  the  assembly  when  he  refused  to  take  the  oaths  of 
allegiance  and  supremacy  (Hening,  II,  198). 

*  Burk,  History  of  Va.,  II,  137. 

4  Hening,  II,  280. 

6  Cooke,  Virginia,  226-230. 


The  Suffrage  in  Virginia.  31 

of  the  new  act  were,  first,  that 

"  the  usuall  way  of  chuseing  burgesses  by  the  votes  of  all  persons  who 
haveing  served  their  tyme  are  ffreemen  of  this  country  who  haveing 
little  interest  in  the  country  doe  ofner  make  tumults  at  the  election  to 
the  disturbance  of  his  majesties  peace,  then  [than]  by  their  discretions 
in  their  votes  provide  for  the  conservasion  thereof,  by  makeing  choyce 
of  persons  fitly  qualifyed  for  the  discharge  of  soe  great  a  trust ;" 

and,  secondly,  that 

"  the  lawes  of  England  grant  a  voyce  in  such  election  only  to  such  as 
by  their  estates  real  or  personall  have  interest  enough  to  tye  them  to 
the  endeavor  of  the  publique  good." 

The  law  then  provided 

"  that  none  but  freeholders  and  housekeepers  who  only  are  answerable 
to*the  publique  for  the  levies  shall  hereafter  have  a  voice  in  the  election 
of  any  burgesses  in  this  country ;  and  that  the  election  be  at  the  court 
house."  * 

Thus  the  first  limitation  of  the  suffrage,  ostensibly  adopted 
on  account  of  evil  practices  in  the  colony  and  because  of  the 
force  of  English  custom,  restricted  the  voters  to  the  house- 
holding  and  freeholding  classes. 

In  1673,  when  Charles  II  gave  away  Virginia  to  Arling 
ton  and  Culpepper,  the  colonists  took  measures  to  assert 
their  rights ;  and  in  the  correspondence  concerning  this  grant, 
while  no  mention  is  made  of  the  suffrage,  yet  the  right  of 
representation  is  most  strongly  asserted.2  The  colony  agents 
in  applying  for  a  new  charter  for  the  province  asked  that 
"  no  manner  of  impositions  or  taxes  shall  be  laid  or  imposed 
upon  the  inhabitants  and  proprietors  there,  unless  by  the 
common  consent  of  the  governor,  council,  and  burgesses,  as 

1  Hening,  II,  280.    Bishop,  Elections  in  American  Colonies,  p.  71,  calls 
attention  to  the  fact  that  the  customs  of  England  permitted  only  free 
holders,  and  not  those  possessing  a  certain  amount  of  personal  prop 
erty,  to  have  a  voice  in  county  elections. 

2  For  facts  and  papers  relating  to  the  Culpepper  grant,  see  Hening, 
II,  311,  427-428,  518-521,  578-583;    Beverly  (London  ed.  of  1722),  64- 
66;    Burk,  Hist,  of  Va.,  II,  142-152,  Appendix  xxxiii  to  cxii;    Neill, 
Virginia  Carolorum,  381  ff. 


32     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

hath  been  heretofore  used."  1  The  right  of  taxation  in  their 
own  assembly,  they  said,  "  contains  that  which  we  conceive 
to  be  the  right  of  Virginians,  as  well  as  all  other  English 
men,  which  is  not  to  be  taxed  but  by  their  consent,  expressed 
by  their  representatives."  2 

While  this  question  was  exciting  the  colonial  land-owners, 
a  greater  danger  threatened  the  authorities  in  Virginia. 
Many  reasons  for  discontent  had  arisen  throughout  the  col 
ony;  heavy  taxes  had  been  laid  and  unwisely  expended,  the 
Indian  wars  were  poorly  managed,  forts  had  fallen  into 
decay,  the  usual  meetings  of  the  assembly  had  been  costly, 
evils  had  crept  into  the  management  of  county  and  parish 
affairs,  and  the  governor  had  kept  one  assembly  without 
dissolution  since  i66i.3  The  hostility  aroused  by  these  evils 
in  administration  found  its  outlet  in  the  uprising  called 
Bacon's  Rebellion.  It  is  not  our  part  to  enter  into  the  causes 
or  purposes  of  this  popular  movement.  There  can  be  no 
doubt  that  Bacon's  followers  were  not  simply  the  lower  and 
disfranchised  classes,  but  that  many  of  the  revolutionists 
were  well-to-do  Englishmen,  indignant  against  certain 
wrongs  and  willing  to  take  what  appeared  to  be  a  good 
opportunity  to  obtain  redress  of  their  grievances.4  ^acoji's 
energy  and  arguments  won  over  many  usually  conservative 
citizens,  and  even  gained  control  of  the  assembly  which  met 
in  June,  1676;  while  among  the  people  his  courage  and 
rough  eloquence  gained  the  support  of  the  poor  freemen, 
who  had  recently  been  excluded  by  the  Virginia  Long  Par 
liament  from  political  power.  It  appears  that  non-property- 

1  Burk,  II,  appendix,  p.  xl. 

2  Neill,  Virginia  Carolorum,  383. 

8  See  the  very  interesting  sets  of  grievances  presented  to  the  royal 
commissioners  after  the  rebellion,  Fa.  Mag.  of  Hist.,  II,  166-173,  289- 
292,  380-392 ;  III,  132-147.  The  "  long  parliament"  convened  for  the 
first  time  March  23,  1660-1,  and  its  last  session  began  March  7,  1675-6; 
see  W.  G.  and  M.  N.  Stanard,  The  Colonial  Virginia  Register,  p.  76. 

4  After  the  insurrection  was  suppressed,  the  Isle  of  Wight  electors 
instructed  their  burgesses  in  assembly,  "  Wee  desire  you  our  Burgesses 
to  give  none  of  our  estates  away  as  formerly  ye  have  done,  but  if  ye 
must  give  such  great  sumes  dispose  of  your  own,"  Fa.  Mag.  of  History, 
II,  387. 


The  Suffrage  in  Virginia.  33 

holding  freemen  participated  in  the  elections  for  members 
of  the  assembly  of  June,  1676,*  and  the  assembly  took  pains 
to  restore  the  suffrage  to  such  persons. 
One  of  the  most  significant  features  of  " 


_ 

bly"  of_i6762  is  the  broader  democratic  basis  which  was 
given  to  the  state;  not  only  was  the  suffrage  restored  to  its 
former  extent,  but  many  offices  which  had  been  appointive 
were  now  for  the  first  time  made  elective.  Chapter  VII  of 
the  acts  of  this  assembly  provided  that  the  statute  of  1670, 

"  which  forbids  freemen  to  have  votes  in  the  election  of  burgesses  be 
repealed,  and  that  they  may  be  admitted  together  with  the  freeholders 
and  householders  to  vote  as  formerly  in  such  elections."  8 

All  militia  officers  had  formerly  been  appointed  by  the 
governor,  but  now  it  was  permitted  that  in  certain  troops 
"  the  soldiers  for  greater  encouragement  have  free  liberty 
to  nominate  theire  owne  officers,"  provided  they  were  chosen 
from  the  militia  officers  of  the  respective  counties.4  In  the 
same  manner  the  "  long  continuance  of  vestries"  was  de 
clared  A  grievance;  the  old  self-perpetuating  vestrymen 
were  set  aside  for  new  boards  elected  for  a  term  of  three 
years  by  the  "  freeholders  and  freemen  of  every  parish,"  and 
the  members  of  the  vestries  were  to  be  freeholders  or  sub 
stantial  householders.5  Still  another  step  towards  democ 
racy  is  seen  in  the  provision  for  a  representative  county  levy 
court^composed  of  the  justices  and  an  equal  number  of 
representatives  elected  by  the  majority  of  votes  of  freehold 
ers,  householders,  and  freemen  in  each  parish  of  the  county.6 

Bacon's  power  was  of  short  duration,  and  his  changes  in 
the  laws  did  not  long  survive  the  overthrow  of  his  authority. 
Royal  instructions  sent  to  Governor  Berkeley  in  November, 
i676,7  said: 

1  Campbell,  History  of  Virginia,  289  ;    Cooke,  Virginia,  245. 
1  For  legislation  of  this  assembly,  see  Hening,  II,  341-365. 
1  Hening,  II,  356. 
4  Hening,  II,  348. 
6  Hening,  II,  356. 

6  Hening,  II,  357. 

7  Hening,  II,  424-5. 

3 


34     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

"  I.  You  shalbe  noe  more  obliged  to  call  an  assembly  once  every 
yeare,  but  only  once  in  two  yeares,  unlesse  some  emergent  occasion 
shall  make  it  necessary,  the  judging  whereof  wee  leave  to  your  discre 
tion.  Alsoe  whensoever  the  assembly  is  called  ffourteene  dayes  shalbe 
the  time  prefixed  for  their  sitting  and  noe  longer,  unlesse  you  finde 
goode  cause  to  continue  it  beyond  that  tyme. 

"  II.  You  shall  take  care  that  the  members  of  the  assembly  be  elected 
only  by  ffreeholders,  as  being  more  agreeable  to  thi  custome  of  Eng 
land  to  which  you  are  as  nigh  as  conveniently  you  can  to  conforme 
yourselfe." 

The  king  further  directed  Berkeley  to  declare  all  the  legisla 
tion  of  Bacon's  Assembly  null  and  void,  an  instruction  which 
was  enacted  into  law  by  an  assembly  of  February,  1 676-7. 1 
It  is  not  certain  that  the  suffrage  was  at  once  limited  to  free 
holders,  for  after  the  repeal  of  the  Bacon  acts  no  new  law 
was  passed  for  a  number  of  years,  and  it  is  thought  probable 
that  the  freeholder  and  householder  clause  of  the  act  of  1670 
was  enforced  for  a  time.2 

Lord  Culpepper's  commission  as  governor  of  Virginia 
gave  him  power  to  call  assemblies  elected  by  the  "  ffreehold 
ers  and  Planters"  of  the  colony  according  to  the 'former 
usage  of  the  province.3  An  assembly  of  1684,  however, 
passed  a  resolution  which  is  the  first  formal  act  limiting  the 
suffrage  to  land-holders.  From  this  year,  1684,  until  1830, 
no  one  but  freeholders  could  vote  in  Virginia.  The  assembly 

"  Resolved,  That  it  is  the  undoubted  right  of  every  person  w^>  holds 
lands,  tenements  or  hereditaments  for  his  owne  life,  for  the  life  of  his 
wife,  or  for  the  life  of  any  other  person  or  persons  to  vote  in  Election 
of  Burgesses  for  the  county  where  such  lands,  tenements,  &c,  doe  lye." 

This  resolution,  by  a  negative  interpretation,  might  be  taken 
as  excluding  from  elections  those  who  did  not  possess  land ; 
but  it  did  not  expressly  do  so,  and  it  contained  no  punitive 
provision  for  irregular  voting. 

These  errors  were  corrected  fifteen  years  later  in  an  act 

1  Hening,  II,  380. 

2  Lord  Culpepper's  instructions  of  1680  provided  that  voters  should 
be  freeholders  and  householders,  Neill,  Virginia  Carolorum,  390. 

8  Calendar  of  Virginia  State  Papers,  I,  14-16 


The  Suffrage  in  Virginia.  35 

of  1699,  the  purpose  of  which  was  said  to  be  the  "  prevention 
of  undue  elections  of  Burgeses."  1  This  act  distinctly  dis 
qualified  from  voting  those  who  were  not  freeholders  of  the 
respective  counties  and  towns,  and  imposed  a  fine  of  five 
hundred  pounds  of  tobacco  upon  any  disfranchised  person 
presuming  to  vote.  An  important  feature  of  the  act  was  the 
exclusion  of  certain  freeholders  who  under  the  earlier  vague 
phrases  might  have  claimed  a  voice  in  elections : 

"  Provided  always  and  it  is  the  true  intent  of  this  act  that  no  woman 
sole  or  covert,  infants  under  the  age  of  twenty-one  years,  or  recusant 
convict  being  freeholders  shall  be  entitled  to  give  a  vote  or  have  a 
voice  in  the  election  of  burgeses." 

The  direct  exclusion  of  women  is  unusual  in  colonial 
laws,  the  practice  of  male  suffrage  generally  being  so  strong 
that  no  formal  exclusion  was  considered  necessary.  This 
clause,  by  excluding  "  recusant  convicts,"  deprived  Catholics 
of  the  right  to  vote,  an  exclusion  which  was  continued  until 
the  Revolution;  and  an  act  of  the  same  session  rendered 
popish  recusants  convict  incapable  of  being  witnesses  in  any 
case  whatever.2  Other  sections  provided  that  if  the  sheriff 
could  not  determine  the  election  "  upon  the  view,"  that  he 
should  appoint  clerks,  who  were  to  write  down  the  electors' 
names  and  the  persons  for  whom  they  voted;  that  where  a 
person's  freehold  were  in  doubt,  he  might  be  compelled  to 
swear  or  affirm  to  his  qualification ;  that  a  candidate  bribing 
electors  should  be  rendered  incapable  of  sitting  in  the  assem 
bly  for  which  he  had  been  chosen ;  together  with  a  number 
of  other  administrative  provisions. 

An  act  of  the  same  year  with  this  election  law  restricted 
jury  service  also  to  freeholders  who  possessed  one  hundred 
pounds  sterling  real  and  personal  estate.3  In  1705  the  de 
tails  of  the  elective  system  were  much  more  fully  elaborated.4 
The  forms  of  writs  and  their  proclamation  in  the  churches, 
the  duties  of  sheriffs  and  their  deputies,  the  manner  of 

1  Hening,  III,  172-175.    Cf.  English  Statute,  7  and  8  Wm.  Ill,  ch.  25. 

2Hening,  III,  298. 

8  Hening,  III,  175-176. 

4  Hening,  III,  236-246. 


36     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

making  election  returns,  and  many  other  features  were  now 
specified.  Some  slight  change  was  made  in  the  suffrage 
provisions.  The  new  section  said  that, 

"  After  publication  of  writs,  and  time  and  place  for  election  of  bur 
gesses  as  aforesaid,  every  freeholder,  actually  resident  within  the  county 
where  the  election  is  to  be  made,  respectively  shall  appear  accordingly, 
and  give  his  vote  at  such  election,  upon  penalty  of  forfeiting  two  hun 
dred  pounds  of  tobacco  to  such  person  or  persons  as  will  inform  and 
sue  for  the  same." 


Thus  to  freeholdership  inhabitancy  was  added,  and  a  fine 
was  again  levied  upon  those  neglecting  to  vote.  The  term 
freeholder,  already  limited  by  the  resolution  of  1684,  received 
another  definition  in  this  act.  It  was  now  held  to  extend  to 
"  every  person  who  hath  an  estate  real  for  his  own  life,  or 
the  life  of  another,  or  any  estate  of  greater  dignity." 

A  curious  provision  is  to  be  found  in  another  law  of  the 
year  I7O5.1  This  act  declared  that  negro,  mulatto,  and 
Indian  slaves  should  be  accounted  real  estate,  and  with  some 
slight  changes  should  descend  in  fee  simple  according  to  the 
rules  for  the  descent  of  land.  But  if  slaves  were  to  be  held 
as  real  estate,  the  question  would  arise  whether  a  man  could 
vote  who  possessed  this  form  of  real  estate  alone.  This 
question  the  assembly  answered  in  the  negative,  expressly 
stating  that  the  holders  of  slaves  and  not  of  other  real  estate 
should  not  possess  the  privilege  of  a  freeholder  in  elections. 

Women,  Catholics,  and  minors  being  freeholders  had  been 
expressly  excluded  from  the  suffrage  by  the  acts  of  1699 
and  1705.  In  the  latter  year  negroes,  mulattoes,  and  Indians 
were  forbidden,  under  penalty  of  heavy  fines,  to  hold  any 
civil,  military,  or  ecclesiastical  office  in  the  colony.2  A  fur 
ther  limitation  came  in  1723,  perhaps  as  a  result  of  an 
attempted  negro  insurrection,3  when  the  assembly  enacted 
"  That  no  free  negro,  mulatto,  or  Indian  whatsoever  shall 

1  Hening,  III,  333. 

8Hening,  III,  251.  A  mulatto  was  defined  as  a  child  of  an  Indian, 
and  the  child,  grandchild  or  great-grandchild  of  a  negro. 

8J.  A.  C.  Chandler,  The  History  of  Suffrage  in  Virginia,  J.  H.  U. 
Studies,  XIX,  Nos.  6  and  7,  p.  12. 


The  Suffrage  in  Virginia.  37 

hereafter  have  any  vote  at  the  elections  of  burgesses,  or  any 
other  election  whatsoever."  1  The  attorney  of  the.  Board 
of  Trade,  Richard  West,  when  commenting  upon  this  law, 
gave  expression  to  views  which  show  the  English  tendency 
towards  legal  equality,  but  which  also  prove  that  he  knew 
little  of  colonial  conditions.  He  wrote, 

"  I  cannot  see  why  one  freeman  should  be  used  worse  than  another, 
merely  on  account  of  his  complexion.  ...  It  cannot  be  right  to  strip 
all  persons  of  a  black  complexion  from  those  rights  which  are  so  justly 
valuable  to  any  freeman."  2 

His  opinion  was  not  accepted  either  in  England  or  the  col 
ony,  and  after  1723  the  voting  privilege  was  limited  to 
white  male  Protestant  freeholders,  twenty-one  years  of  age, 
who  resided  in  the  county  where  they  offered  to  vote. 

Thus  by  successive  limitations  Virginia  was  getting  away 
from  the  earlier  manhood  suffrage,  and  another  restriction 
was  soon  to  come.  As  early  as  1710  we  learn  of  election 
frauds  and  contested  seats  in  the  assembly.3  In  a  letter  of 
October  15,  1712,  Governor  Spotswood  described  the  evil 
to  the  Board  of  Trade,  as  follows :  4 

"This  unhappy  State  of  her  Maj't's  Subjects  in  my  Neighbourhood 
is  ye  more  affecting  to  me  because  I  have  very  little  hopes  of  being 
enabled  to  relieve  them  by  our  Assembly,  which  I  have  called  to  meet 
next  Wee.k ;  for  the  Mob  of  this  Country  having  tryed  their  Strength 
in  the  late  Election  and  finding  themselves  able  to  carry  whom  they 
please,  have  generally  chosen  representatives  of  their  own  Class,  who 
as  their  principal  Recommendation  have  declared  their  resolution  to 
raise  no  Tax  on  the  people,  let  the  occasion  be  what  it  will.  This  is 
owing  to  a  defect  in  the  Constitution,  which  allows  to  every  one,  tho' 
just  out  of  the  Condition  of  a  Serv't,  and  that  can  but  purchase  half  an 
acre  of  Land,  an  equal  vote  with  the  Man  of  the  best  Estate  in  the 
Country." 

The  governor  here  hinted  at  the  next  restriction  which 
would  be  placed  upon  the  freedom  of  elections,  although  the 

'Hening,  IV,  I33~i34- 

*  Neill,  Virginia  Carolorum,  330,  note  i. 
8  Calendar  of  Va.  State  Papers,  I,  142-3. 

*  Letters  of  Governor  Spotswood,  II,  I. 


38     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

defect  in  the  constitution  which  he  mentioned  was  not  reme- 
xiied  until  almost  a  quarter  of  a  century  after  the  date  of  his 
letter.  The  English  Board  of  Trade  instructed  Spotswood 
to  try  to  have  a  law  passed  for  raising  the  qualifications  of 
voters,  and  they  promised  to  see  that  something  was  done 
in  England  to  force  the  colonists  to  adopt  such  a  measure.1 
There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  granting  of  the  suffrage  to 
all  freeholders  without  placing  any  lower  limit  to  the  size 
of  the  freehold  led  to  many  evils.  "  Divers  frauds"  were 
practised  "  to  create  and  multiply  votes"  by  the  making  of 
"  leases  of  small  and  inconsiderable  parcels  of  land  upon 
feigned  considerations,  and  by  subdividing  lots  of  ground 
in  towns;"  all  of  which  was  declared  to  be  "  in  prejudice  of 
the  rights  of  the  true  freeholder."2  "" 

To  remedy  these  conditions  th£  act  of  1736  was  passed,3 
which  named  a  minimum  ampunt  of  freehold  to  be  held  by 
electors.  The  limiting  claulSdirected 


"  That  no  person  or  persons  whatsoever  shall  hereafter  have  a  right 
to  vote  at  any  election  of  members  to  serve  in  the  general  assembly, 
for  any  county,  who  hath  not  an  estate  of  freehold,  or  other  greater 
estate,  in  one  hundred  acres  of  land,  at  least,  if  no  settlement  be  made 
upon  it;  or  twenty-five  acres  with  a  house  and  plantation,  in  his  pos 
session,  or  in  the  possession  of  his  tenant  or  tenants,  for  term  of  years, 
in  the  same  county  where  he  gives  such  vote." 

Where  the  freehold  had  come  by  purchase,  the  hold?r  could 
not  vote  in  virtue  of  it  until  he  had  been  in  possession  one 
year.  In  the  case  of  joint  tenants,  only  one  vote  was  to  be 
given,  unless  the  freehold  was  sufficient  in  quantity  to  give 
each  joint  tenant  the  amount  required  for  legal  electors.  In 
towns  the  qualification  was  different  from  that  in  the  country 
districts,  and  was  based  upon  houses  and  lots  rather  than 
acres  of  freehold. 

"  Provided  always,  that  nothing  in  this  act  contained  shall  be  con 
strued  to  hinder  any  person  to  vote  at  such  elections,  in  respect  or  in 
right  of  any  houses,  lands,  or  tenements,  lying  and  being  in  any  city 

1  Chandler,  The  Suffrage  in  Va.,  J.  H.  U.  Stud.,  XIX,  12. 

2  Hening,  IV,  475- 

3  Hening,  IV,  475-478.    Cf.  English  statute,  10  Ann.,  ch.  31. 


.  if 

The  Suffrage  in  Virginia.  39 

or  town,  laid  out  and  established  by  act  of  assembly,  so  as  such  person 
be  a  freeholder,  in  any  house  or  lot,  or  a  house,  and  part  of  a  lot;  but 
where  the  interest  in  any  such  house  and  lot,  or  house  and  part  of  a 
lot,  is  or  shall  be  divided  among  several  persons,  no  more  than  one 
single  voice  shall  be  admitted  for  one  and  the  same  house  or  lot."  x 

A  fine  of  forty  pounds  was  laid  upon  any  one  making  or 
drafting  a  fraudulent  conveyance  in  order  to  qualify  voters, 
and  upon  those  voting  by  virtue  of  such  estates;  and  all 
these  conveyances,  whether  made  before  or  after  the  passage 
of  the  act,  were  pronounced  null  and  void.  It  is  to  be  noted 
also,  that  neither  this  act  nor  the  later  ones  of  1762  and  1769 
contained  the  limitation  imposed  by  the  act  of  1705,  that 
voting  freeholders  should  be  inhabitants  of  the  county. 
Later,  plural  voting  was  apparently  permitted  where  free 
holders  held  the  requisite  amount  of  land  in  several  counties, 
and  elections  in  neighboring  counties  were  held  on  different 
days.2 

The  Virginia  act  of  1736  has  a  number  of  interesting 
features.  It  is  remarkable  for  the  attempt  to  adapt  the  suf 
frage  qualifications  to  different  classes  of  the  inhabitants,. 
The  three  alternatives, — one  hundred  acres  of  land,  or 
twenty-five  acres  and  a  house,  or  a  town  house  and  lot, — 

1  A  town  lot  by  some  early  laws  must  be  one-half  an  acre  (Hening, 
III,  417,  423)  ;  but  by  the  later  acts  it  might  be  less  but  could  not  be 
greater  than  that  amount  (Hening,  IV,  235;  V,  193,  198).  In  the 
laws  erecting  towns  many  specifications  are  given  concerning  the  size, 
position,  and  manner  of  building  houses  in  the  towns;  and  as  these 
regulations  differed  in  the  several  towns,  the  exact  nature  of  the  suf 
frage  clause  would  be  a  matter  of  local  interpretation.  In  Williams- 
burg,  houses  on  the  main  street  must  be  twenty  by  forty  or  fifty  feet, 
and  on  the  other  streets  each  house  must  cover  four  or  five  hundred 
feet  (Hening,  III,  429)  ;  in  Fredericksburg,  houses  were  to  be  twenty 
by  twenty  feet  with  a  pitch  of  nine  feet  (Hening,  IV,  236)  ;  in  Leeds 
the  building  rules  were  similar  to  those  in  Fredericksburg  (Hening,  V, 
193)  ;  while  in  Suffolk  the  legal  size  of  houses  was  sixteen  by  twenty 
feet,  with  a  height  of  eight  feet  (Hening,  V,  13$). 

3  See  a  contested  election  case  hinging  upon  plural  voting,  quoted  by 
J.  F.  Jameson,  The  Nation,  Vol.  56,  309.  Also  Beverly  (1722),  206: 
"  The  freeholders  are  the  only  electors,  and  wherever  they  have  a  free 
hold  .  .  .  they  have  a  vote  in  the  election." 


4O     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

while  all  requiring  a  freehold,  so  adapted  the  freehold  quali 
fication  to  the  varying  circumstances  of  the  people  that  in 
reality  the  restriction  upon  the  suffrage  was  not  so  great  as 
at  first  might  appear.  Later,  when  the  act  of  1762  lowered 
the  freehold  to  fifty  acres,  and  reduced  the  size  of  town 
houses,  the  franchise  was  placed  upon  a  more  liberal  basis 
than  in  many  of  the  other  colonies.  Further,  after  1736, 
two  places,  Williamsburg  and  Norfolk,  had  a  peculiarly 
wide  borough  franchise.  The  act  contains,  too,  the  unique 
feature  of  fractional  voting.1  Plural  voting  has  been  men 
tioned  in  this  work  in  several  places,  but  it  is  believed  that  no 
.  case  of  fractional  voting  for  colonial  assemblymen  is  to  be 
1  found  except  in  Virginia,  where  a  number  of  joint-tenants 
^could  unite  to  cast  one  vote  for  their  freehold.  Thus, 
throughout  this  act,  and  the  later  ones  of  1762  and  1769 
which  liberalized,  rather  than  restricted,  its  provisions,  there 
is  an  evident  intention  to  examine  closely  the  various  classes 
of  landholders  and  frame  a  law  which  would  admit  all  the 
reputable  freeholders  to  the  elective  franchise. 

An  elaborate  election  law,  which  set  the  voter's  qualifi 
cations  and  explained  in  detail  the  electing  process,  was 
passed  in  1762.  The  former  laws  had  "proved  defective," 
and  the  new  law  organized  the  electoral  system  so  thor 
oughly  that  its  provisions  remained  in  force  long  into  the 
commonwealth  period.  The  act 2  provided  for  the  election 
of  "most  able  and  fit  men"  as  burgesses;  two  elected  by 
the  freeholders  of  each  county,  one  by  the  freeholders  of 
James  City,  and  one  each  by  the  city  of  Williamsburg,  the 
borough  of  Norfolk,  and  the  College  of  William  and  Mary 
according  to  their  respective  charter  privileges.  No  assem 
bly  could  continue  longer  than  seven  years,  and  a  new  elec 
tion  must  be  held  at  least  three  years  after  a  dissolution 
of  an  assembly.  The  general  elector's  qualification  was 
changed  in  the  direction  of  a  broader  suffrage  by  lowering 
the  amount  of  unsettled  land  from  one  hundred  acres  with  a 

J  fifty  acres;    the  old  provision  of  twenty-five  acres  with  a 
house  and  plantation  was  now  rendered  more  explicit  by 

1  Reference  will  be  made  to  fractional  voting  on  Long  Island  and 
in  New  England. 

2  Chapter  I  of  November,  1762,  Hening,  VII,  517-530. 


The  Suffrage  in  Virginia.  41 

requiring  the  house  to  be  at  least  twelve  feet  square;  and 
the  same  sized  house  was  required  of  town  voters,1  except 
in  Williamsburg  and  Norfolk,  where  the  charters  and  for 
mer  laws  should  govern  the  elections.2 

i/ 

"  Every  person  shall  have  a  right  to  vote  at  any  election  of  Burgesses 
for  any  county  who  hath  an  estate  of  freehold  for  his  own  life,  or  the 
life  of  another,  or  other  greater  estate  in  at  least  fifty_ajcres  of  land,  if 
no  settlement  be  made  upon  it,  or  twenty-five  acres,  with  a  plantation 
and  house  thereon,  at  least  twelve  feet  square,  in  his  possession,  or  in 
the  possession  of  his  tenant  or  tenants,  for  term  of  years  at  will  or 
sufferance,  in  the  same  county  where  he  gives  such  vote;  .  .  .  and 
every  person  possessed  of  a  lot,  or  part  of  a  lot,  in  any  city  or  town 
established  by  act  of  assembly,  with  a  house  thereon  at  least  twelve  feet 
square,  shall  have  a  right  to  vote  at  such  elections." 

Joint  tenancies  should  qualify  all  the  joint  owners  only 
when  the  freehold  was  of  sufficient  quantity  to  furnish  the 
legal  amount  to  each,  and  where  it  was  less  than  this,  but 
one  vote  was  to  be  given  for  the  tenancy,  and  that  only  in 
case  all  the  parties  interested  could  agree.  The  disfran 
chised  class  remained  the  same  as  under  the  earlier  acts, 
except  that  a  convict  freeholder  was  excluded  from  voting 
*  only  during  the  time  for  which  he  had  been  transported. 
The  fine  of  five  hundred  pounds  of  tobacco  upon  disqualified 
persons  who  voted  illegally  was  retained,  as  also  that  of 
two  hundred  pounds  upon  qualified  persons  who  neglected 
to  vote.  Freeholds,  as  previously,  must  be  held  for  one  year 
before  qualifying  a  person  to  vote,  unless  the  lands  came  by 
descent,  marriage,  marriage  settlement,  or  devise.  The  act 
of  1762,  while  attaining  a  desirable  end  by  carefully  out 
lining  the  management  of  elections,  must  also  have  worked 
an  extension  of  the  suffrage,  since  it  cut  down  the  general 
land  requirements  from  one  hundred  to  fifty  acres,  and  low 
ered  the  legal  size  of  houses  in  the  towns.  The  qualifica- 

1  The  size  twelve  by  twelve  feet  would  work  an  extension  of  the 
suffrage  in  the  towns  also,  for  the  legal  requirement  for  house-building 
in  the  towns  always  specified  a  larger  structure  than  twelve  by  twelve 
feet,  the  usual  proportions  being  twenty  by  twenty  feet. 

"  Hening,  VII,  529. 


42     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

tions  thus  established  were  practically  unchanged  down  to 
I830.1 

Turning  from  these  uniform  suffrage  qualifications,  we 
must  now  notice  three  exceptions  to  the  general  election  pro 
visions, — the  cases  of  electors  in  the  city  of  Williamsburg, 
in  the  borough  of  Norfolk,  and  in  the  College  of  William 
and  Mary.2  The  first  law  relating  to  the  city  of  Williams- 
burg  was  passed  in  1699^  and  this  was  followed  by  a  sup 
plemental  act  in  1705^  The  plot  of  the  city  was  divided 
into  half-acre  lots  upon  which  the  owners  were  required  to 
erect  buildings  within  two  years  after  purchase,  and  the 
height,  size,  and  position  of  houses  were  determined  by  law 
and  by  regulations  of  the  commissioners  appointed  under 
the  law.  On  July  28,  1722,  the  city  received  a  charter5 
which  established  a  municipal  corporation  with  self-perpetu 
ating  officers,  and  gave  the  city  the  privilege  of  sending 
one  burgess  to  the  assembly.  Following  the  English  and 
general  colonial  custom,  the  borough  franchise  was  placed 
upon  a  basis  differing  from  the  county  freehold  qualifica 
tion.  The  electors  in  the  city  were  ( i )  the  mayor,  recorder, 
aldermen,  and  common  councilmen ;  ( 2 )  all  freeholders  own 
ing  a  whole  lot  of  ground  with  a  house  built  thereon  accord 
ing  to  law,6  (3)  all  actual  inhabitants  and  residents  of  the 

1  The  act  of  1769   (Chapter  I,  November,   1769,  Hening,  VIII,  305- 
317)  re-enacted  almost  all  the  provisions  of  the  law  of  1762.    The  most 
important    omissions    were   the    sections    requiring   the    dissolution    of 
assembly  at  least  once  in  seven  years,  and  an  election  at  least  three 
years  after  the  dissolution.    By  the  new  act  lands  need  be  held  only  six 
months  before  the  election,  and  unanimity  upon  the  part  of  joint  tenants 
was  not  required. 

2  Jamestown,   which   was   another   exception   to   the   uniform   county 
representation,  was  not  the  recipient  of  any  special  suffrage  privileges. 

3  Hening,  III,  197. 

4  Hening,  III,  419-432. 

6  Partially  recited  in  Hening,  V,  204. 

6  The  act  of  1705  had  given  many  details  concerning  the  building  of 
houses ;  requiring  those  on  the  main  street  of  Williamsburg  to  measure 
twenty  by  fifty  feet,  or  if  possessing  two  brick  chimneys  and  bricked 
cellar,  then  twenty  by  forty  feet ;  and  houses  on  other  streets  were  to 
cover  four  or  five  hundred  square  feet  according  as  bricks  did  or  did 
not  enter  into  their  construction.  (Hening,  III,  425,  429,  430.) 


The  Suffrage  in  Virginia.  43 

city  who  had  a  visible  estate  of  fifty  pounds  current  money ; 
(4)  all  persons  who  had  served  five  years  to  any  trade  in 
the  city,  and  after  the  expiration  of  their  service,  were  actual 
housekeepers  and  inhabitants  of  the  city.  These  provisions 
were  explained  at  large  by  an  act  of  I742,1  but  no  change 
was  made  in  them  except  that  a  residence  of  twelve  months 
was  required  of  those  voting  as  inhabitants,  and  unanimity 
of  joint  tenants  was  required  before  a  vote  could  be  cast 
for  their  lot. 

The  charter  of  Norfolk,  of  1736,  made  the  voting  class 
almost  identical  with  that  of  Williamsburg.2  As  later  ex 
plained  by  the  assembly,3  the  suffrage  was  vested  in  free 
holders  owning  at  least  one-half  a  lot  of  ground  with  a 
house  of  the  size  required  for  a  whole  lot,  or  inhabitants 
having  resided  twelve  months  in  the  town  and  owning  fifty 
pounds  visible  estate,  or  tradesmen  who  had  served  five 
years  to  a  trade  in  the  town,  had  received  a  certificate  from 
the  court  of  hustings  and  were  actually  inhabitants  and 
housekeepers.  Indentured  and  covenanted  servants  were 
especially  excluded  from  voting  as  inhabitants. 

The  elaborate  act  of  1705*  for  ''establishing  ports  and 
towns,"  so  notably  unsuccessful,  also  contained  a  clause  per 
mitting  each  town,  after  receiving  sixty  families  of  inhabi 
tants  and  becoming  fully  organized  as  a  borough,  to  send 
one  burgess  to  the  assembly,  who  was  to  be  elected  by  adult 
male  freeholders  and  housekeepers  of  the  town.5  This  pro 
vision  was  not  carried  out  within  the  next  five  years,  and  at 
the  end  of  that  time  the  act  was  repealed  by  the  governor  in 
accordance  with  the  Queen's  instructions. 

An  inspection  of  the  suffrage  features  of  the  charters  of 
Williamsburg  and  Norfolk  shows  their  close  similarity  to 
the  city  or  borough  charters  in  the  neighboring  colonies 

1Hening,  V,  204-207. 

2  See  charter  in  Ingle,  Local  Institutions  in  Virginia,  J.  H.  U.  Studies, 
III,  No.  2,  121-126.     It  was  later  confirmed  by  act  of  assembly  (Hen- 
ing,  IV,  541). 

3  Act  of  1753,  Hening,  VI,  261-265. 

'Hening,  III,  404-419;    repealed  by  Governor  Spotswood's  proclama 
tion  in  1710. 
0  Hening,  III,  414. 


44     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

of  North  Carolina,  Maryland,  Delaware,  and  Pennsylvania. 
Indeed,  wherever  population  was  grouped  in  cities  or  towns 
in  the  middle  or  southern  colonies,  the  colonial  custom  fol 
lowed  the  English  precedent  of  adapting  the  suffrage  quali 
fications  to  the  variant  economic  conditions  of  the  towns 
people.  The  freehold  requirement,  which  in  the  country 
districts  excluded  few  honest  and  industrious  men,  would 
be  almost  prohibitive  among  the  merchant  and  artisan  classes 
in  the  towns.  The  colonial  legislators,  undoubtedly  ac 
quainted  with  the  English  borough  charters,  recognized  this 
economic  difference  when  defining  the  voting  class. 

A  third  exception  to  the  uniform  election  laws  is  to  be 
found  in  the  representation  granted  to  the  College  of  Wil 
liam  and  Mary  according  to  the  terms  of  its  charter  of  1693. 
Following  the  privileges  granted  to  Oxford  and  Cambridge, 
the  Virginia  college  received  the  right  to  send  one  burgess 
to  the  assembly,  who  should  be  elected  by  the  president  and 
six  masters  of  the  college  from  their  own  number,  or  from 
the  board  of  visitors  or  from  among  the  citizens  of  the 
colony.1  This  right  was  respected  by  subsequent  legislation, 
and  the  elections  of  representatives  for  the  college  were  made 
by  the  seven  persons  authorized  to  do  so  by  the  charter.2 

1  The  charter  provided : 

"XVIII.  and,  also,  of  our  special  grace,  certain  knowledge 
and  mere  motion  we  have  given  and  granted,  and  by  these  pres 
ents,  for  us  and  our  successors,  do  give  and  grant  to  the  said 
President  and  masters  or  professors  of  the  said  College,  full 
and  absolute  power,  liberty,  and  authority  to  nominate,  elect, 
and  constitute  one  discreet  and  able  person  of  their  own  num 
ber,  or  of  the  number  of  the  said  visitors,  or  governors,  or 
lastly  of  the  better  sort  of  inhabitants  of  our  colony  of  Vir 
ginia,  to  be  present  in  the  house  of  Burgesses  of  the  General 
Assembly  of  our  colony  of  Virginia,  and  there  to  act  and  con 
sent  to  such  things  as  by  the  common  advice  of  our  said  colony 
shall  (God  willing)  happen  to  be  enacted." 

*  At  a  meeting  of  the  President  and  masters  on  January  8,  1729-30, 
the  following  action  was  taken : 

"  Upon  the  Governor's  writt  to  elect  a  Burgess  according  to  the  Char 
ter  to  serve  in  the  Assembly,  which  is  prorogued  to  the of  feb- 

ruary,  the  election  fell  unanimously  on  Dr.  George  Nicholas ;"  William 
and  Mary  College  Quarterly,  I,  134.  See  also  Morrison,  History  of 
William  and  Mary  College,  48. 


The  Suffrage  in  Virginia.  45 

We  have  been  noting  heretofore  the  elections  for  the  as 
sembly.  The  facts  concerning  local  suffrage  can  be  told  in 
a  few  words,  since  Virginia  possessed  very  few  local  elec 
tions,  the  most  important  of  which  were  those  for  church 
officers.  Church  wardens  were  to  be  chosen  annually  under 
the  acts  of  1631-2,  1632,  and  1642-3,  but  no  description  is 
given  of  the  method  of  election.1  In  1644-5,  a^ter  vestries 
had  been  in  existence  for  some  time,  the  assembly  directed 
that  the  vestrymen  should  be  chosen  by  the  "  major  part  of 
the  parishioners,  ...  by  pluralitie  of  voices."  2  The  min 
ister  was  chosen  by  the  vestry,  but  in  an  election  in  1649  ^ 
was  stated  that  the  vestry  made  choice  of  a  minister,  with 
the  full  and  free  consent  of  the  freemen  of  the  parish.3  The 
early  laws  do  not  provide  for  any  changes  in  the  vestry,  but 
in  i66i-24  they  were  empowered  to  fill  vacancies  in  their 
own  number,  and  with  the  minister  to  elect  the  two  church 
wardens  from  among  themselves.  Bacon's  Assembly  in 
1676  limited  the  term  of  vestries  to  three  years,  and  provided 
for  their  election  by  the  "  freeholders  and  freemen"  of  every 
parish,  thus  granting  manhood  suffrage  in  their  election ; 5 
but  this,  together  with  all  the  other  legislation  of  this  assem 
bly,  was  of  short  duration.  In  1708  the  governor  and  coun 
cil  ordered  that  in  an  approaching  vestry  election,  "  for 
avoiding  all  tumult  and  confusion,  which  usually  happens  on 
such  occasions,"  "  every  freeholder  and  Householder  paying 
Seott  and  Lett  [scot  and  lot]  in  the  parish  and  no  other 
have  vote  at  the  said  election."  6  The  rule  here  laid  down 
was  followed  by  the  assembly  in  the  later  acts,  when  for  any 
reason  a  new  vestry  must  be  elected.  Thus,  whenever  a  new 
parish  was  erected,  or  the  vestrymen  of  an  old  parish  neg 
lected  their  duties  or  were  proved  to  be  dissenters,  a  new 
vestry  was  chosen  by  the  freeholders  and  householders  of 
the  parish.7  Although  not  regularly  chosen,  yet  when  ves- 

1  Hening,  I,  155,  180,  240. 
3  Hening,  I,  290. 

*  Lower  Norfolk  County  Virginia  Antiquary,  II,  63. 

*  Hening,  II,  44-5. 

8  Hening,  II,  356. 

9  Calendar  of  Virginia  State  Papers,  I,  122. 

7  See  Hening,  passim;    e.g.,  IV,  304  305,  443,  467;    V,  80,  96,  211, 


46     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

trymen  were  elected  the  suffrage  was  on  a  broader  basis 
than  in  the  assembly  elections. 

The  abortive  town  act  of  1705  contained  a  number  of 
provisions  for  popular  elections,  in  which  the  suffrage  was 
extended  to  all  free  adult  inhabitants  and  freeholders  of  the 
proposed  towns,  but  these  features  were  not  put  in  force 
under  this  act;  and  under  the  later  town  charters  the  local 
government  was  of  the  close  corporation  type  without  elective 
features.1  The  same  absence  of  elective  officers  is  seen  in 
the  county  government,  where  the  only  exception  is  the  tem 
porary  provision  for  local  county  representatives,  who  were 
joined  with  the  county  court  in  the  levying  of  taxes.  These, 
under  Bacon's  laws,  were  to  be  elected  in  each  parish  by  the 
"  freeholders,  householders,  and  freemen,"2 but  subsequently 
the  freemen  were  excluded  and  the  election  limited  to  free 
holders  and  householders.3  Only  one  reference  has  been 
found  to  elective  militia  officers,  and  this,  too,  was  among 
the  transitory  work  of  Bacon's  Assembly.4 

In  closing  the  subject  of  the  suffrage  in  Virginia,  refer 
ence  must  be  made  to  some  figures  and  conclusions  given  by 
Professor  J.  F.  Jameson  and  President  L.  G.  Tyler  concern 
ing  the  numbers  of  the  voting  class  in  Virginia.  Professor 
Jameson,  in  a  comparison  of  the  extent  of  the  suffrage  in 
Virginia  with  that  in  Massachusetts,  comes  to  the  conclusion 
that  about  six  per  cent,  of  the  white  population  of  Virginia 
took  part  in  thirteen  elections  between  1744  and  1772,  the 
individual  cases  varying  from  four  to  nine  per  cent.5  Presi 
dent  Tyler  has  developed  the  idea,  and  in  a  series  of  election 
returns  6  has  shown  that  the  proportion  of  voters  was  even 
greater  than  that  given  by  Professor  Jameson.  These  figures 


254,  259,  274,  381 ;  VI,  256,  276,  381 ;  VII,  132,  144,  153,  301,  303 ;  VIII, 
432.  Returns  of  vestry  elections  in  1761  will  be  found  in  Lower  Nor 
folk  County  Virginia  Antiquary,  I,  18-19. 

1  See  charters  of  Williamsburg  and  Norfolk  already  quoted. 

2Hening,  II,  357. 

8Hening,  II,  441. 

4  Hening,  II,  348. 

8  N.  Y.  Nation,  April  27,  1893,  Vol.  56,  309-310. 

8  Virginians  Voting  in  the  Colonial  Period,  William  and  Mary  Quar 
terly,  vi,  7-13- 


The  Suffrage  in  Virginia.  47 

give  eight  per  cent,  of  the  white  population  voting  in  an 
election  in  Elizabeth  City  County  in  1758,  ten  per  cent,  in 
King  George  County  in  the  same  year,  and  seven  and  one- 
half  per  cent,  in  Prince  William  County  in  1741.  In  West 
moreland  County  for  1741,  1748,  1752  the  proportions  are 
seven  and  one-half,  ten,  and  eight  and  one-half  per  cent, 
respectively;  while  in  Essex  County  in  1761  and  1765  the 
voters  numbered  about  ten  per  cent,  of  the  white  inhabitants. 
Taking  the  average  of  these  poll-lists,  it  would  appear  that  ^  $ 
almost  nine  per  cent,  of  the  white  population  actually  par 
ticipated  in  these  elections;  or  that  one  white  person  in 
eleven  not  only  had  a  right  to  vote,  but  did  perform  that 
duty.  In  this  respect  Virginia  compares  favorably  with  the 
New  England  and  the  middle  colonies.  Taking  the  figures 
of  a  somewhat  later  period  in  Massachusetts,1  or  the  poll- 
lists  given  for  New  York  City,2  it  is  apparent  that  the  fran 
chise  was  more  widely  exercised,  if  not  more  widely  con 
ferred,  in  Virginia  than  in  the  more  northern  colonies. 

1 J.  F.  Jameson,  New  Eng.  Magazine,  Jan.,  1890. 
2  See  p.  217. 


CHAPTER    III. 
THE  SUFFRAGE  IN  MARYLAND. 

The  suffrage  in  Maryland  furnishes  a  number  of  pecu 
liarities  which  mark  off  its  political  conditions  from  those 
in  other  colonies.  The  presence  of  the  Catholics  in  a  con 
siderable  number  complicated  the  political  question  with  the 
religious  one,  and  led  through  an  alternation  of  toleration 
and  persecution  to  a  policy  of  constant  repression.  The 
early  primary  assemblies  and  universal  suffrage,  and  their 
development  into  a  proxy  system  and  a  true  representative 
organization,  are  most  interesting  for  the  light  they  throw 
upon  the  inevitable  growth  from  pure  democracy  to  repre 
sentation.  And  the  successive  processes  of  suffrage  limita 
tion  show  the  transition  from  an  early  economic  and  political 
equality  to  a  condition  of  diversity  in  wealth  and  privileges. 

The  royal  charter  to  Baltimore  1  enjoined  upon  the  pro 
prietor  the  necessity  of  admitting  the  inhabitants  of  the 
province  to  a  share  in  the  making  of  laws : 

He  had  power  "  to  ordain,  make,  and  enact  laws  .  .  .  with  the  advice 
...  of  the  free  men  of  the  said  province,  or  of  the  greater  part  of 
them,  or  of  their  delegates  or  deputies,  whom  we  will  shall  be  called 
together  for  the  framing  of  laws,  when  and  as  often  as  need  shall 
require,  by  the  aforesaid  now  baron  of  Baltimore.  ...  So  nevertheless 
that  the  laws  aforesaid  be  consonant  to  reason,  and  be  not  repugnant 
or  contrary,  but  (so  far  as  conveniently  may  be)  agreeable  to  the  laws, 
statutes,  customs,  and  rights  of  this  our  Kingdom  of  England.  ..." 

While  there  could  be  no  doubt  that  the  charter  required 
the  association  of  the  colonists  with  the  proprietor  in  the 
making  of  laws,  yet  it  did  not  clearly  state  the  class  among 
the  colonists  who  should  enjoy  the  suffrage.  The  document, 
written  in  Latin,  used  the  phrases  liberi  homines  and  liberi 
tenentes  in  speaking  of  the  political  people,  and  it  was  at  one 

1  Bozman,  History  of  Maryland,  II,  9  f f ;    Poore,  Charters  and  Con 
stitutions,  I,  811-817;    Archives  of  Md.,  Proceedings  of  Council,  1637- 
1667,  3-12. 
48 


The  Suffrage  in  Maryland.  49 

time  thought  that  the  power  thus  granted  devolved  only  on 
freeholders.  Later  interpreters,  noting  the  practice  of  the 
assemblies,  have  taken  the  other  view,  that  the  charter 
granted  the  suffrage  to  all  free  men.1 

No  provision  is  made  in  the  instructions  to  the  first  gov 
ernor,  Leonard  Calvert,  for  a  popular  assembly ; 2  but  less 
than  a  year  after  the  colonists  arrived  in  the  province  they 
met  in  assembly  and  passed  certain  laws.  The  acts  of  this 
first  meeting,  evidently  a  primary  assembly  of  the  colonists, 
are  shrouded  in  uncertainty.3  Some  legislation  must  have 
been  passed,  for  the  commission  to  Governor  Calvert  in  1637 
directs  him  to  express  the  proprietor's  dissent  to  all  laws  • 
heretofore  passed.4  But  leaving  this  early  assembly,  whose 
work  we  know  only  by  indirect  reference,  we  may  note  the 
more  important  second  assembly,  the  records  of  which  have 
been  quite  fully  preserved. 

The  governor's  commission  of  April  15,  1637,  directed 
him  to  call  an  assembly  of  the  freemen  in  the  following 
January  and  present  to  them  certain  laws  drafted  in  Eng 
land;  and  empowered  him  to  call  future  assemblies  of  the 
freemen,  whose  acts  must  be  submitted  to  the  proprietor  for 
his  approval.5  In  accordance  with  this  commission  the  gov 
ernor  issued  writs  summoning  an  assembly  for  January  25, 
1637-8,  by  which  the  respective  commanders  were  instructed 
"  to  endeavor  to  persuade  fit  freemen  to  attend  in  person," 
and  to  permit  the  rest  of  the  freemen  to  attend  in  person,  or 
elect  their  deputies.6 

1  See  Bozman,  II,  47,  note ;  McMahon,  History  of  Maryland,  443, 
note  i ;  G.  W.  Brown,  The  Origin  and  Growth  of  Civil  Liberty  in 
Maryland,  9. 

8  Instructions  in  Calvert  Papers,  Md.  Hist.  Soc.  Fund  Publications, 
1889,  131-140;  Hart,  History  by  Contemporaries,  I,  247-252. 

8  S.  F.  Streeter,  Papers  Relating  to  the  Early  History  of  Md.,  Md. 
Hist.  Soc.  Fund  Pub.,  1876,  7;  B.  F.  Johnson,  The  Founding  of 
Maryland  and  the  Origin  of  the  Act  Concerning  Religion,  Hist.  Soc. 
Fund  Pub.,  No.  18,  1883,  34-5. 

*  Archives  of  Maryland,  Proceedings  of  Council,  1636-67,  49. 

6  Ibid. 

6 "  and  to  give  free  power  &  liberty  to  all  the  rest  of  the  said  freemen 
either  to  be  p'nt  at  the  said  assembly  if  they  so  please;  or  otherwise 
to  elect  and  nominate  such  and  so  many  persons  as  they  or  the  maior 

4 


50     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

The  assembly  had  as  diverse  a  character  as  the  writ  per 
mitted.  Some  persons  came  in  their  own  right,  others  were 
represented  by  proxies  given  to  attending  freemen,  while 
Kent  Island  was  represented  by  a  regularly  elected  deputy.1 
In  all  perhaps  ninety  persons  were  either  present  or  repre 
sented  during  the  sessions  of  the  assembly.  An  inspection 
of  the  economic  station  of  the  attendants  shows  great  differ 
ences  existing  among  the  freemen;  mariners,  carpenters,  a 
cooper,  and  a  brick-mason  were  associated  with  the  governor, 
the  sheriff,  three  priests,  and  many  gentlemen  and  planters.2 
The  suffrage  appears  to  have  been  upon  the  broadest  possible 
basis.  Two  carpenters  and  two  mariners  who  claimed  a 
voice  in  the  affairs  of  assembly  were  admitted  and  allowed 
to  attend  personally  or  appoint  proxies ; 3  and  two  persons 
from  Kent  Island,  having  previously  voted  for  the  repre 
sentative,  were  permitted  to  participate  personally  in  the 
meetings.4  The  freemen  so  met  in  assembly  fined  those  who 
did  not  attend  or  give  proxies,  and  even  directed  that  all 
freemen  present  in  the  assembly,  or  who  had  given  proxies, 
were  to  be  free  from  arrest  during  the  sessions  of  the  assem 
bly.  The  assembly  by  a  decisive  vote  of  37  to  14  refused 

part  of  them  so  assembled  shall  agree  upon  to  be  the  deputies  or  bur 
gesses  for  the  said  freemen,  in  their  name  and  steed  to  advise  and  con 
sult  of  such  things  as  shalbe  brought  into  deliberation  in  the  said  as 
sembly."  Archives  of  Md.,  Proceedings  and  Acts  of  Assembly,  1637- 
64,  i. 

''Archives,  Assembly,  1637-64,  2-6.  The  delegate  was  elected  by 
the  people  in  the  presence  of  Governor  Calvert,  who  had  gone  to  Kent 
Island  to  enforce  Baltimore's  claims ;  Calvert  Papers  in  Md.  Hist.  Soc. 
Fund  Pub.,  1889,  185. 

2  Streeter,  op.  cit.,  61,  gives  the  occupations  of  members  as  follows: 

Governor I       Ship-carpenter   I 

Secretary   I       Brick-mason   I 

Sheriff    i       Cooper  I 

Marshal   i       Mariners   5 

Priests    3       Planters   48 

Gentlemen  10      Occupations  not  given 12 

Councillors    3 

Carpenters    2          Total    po 

8  Archives,  Assembly,  1637-64,  4,  5,  6. 

4  Ibid.,  5,  8. 


The  Suffrage  in  Maryland.  51 

to  accept  the  laws  sent  over  by  the  proprietor,  and  then  pro 
ceeded  to  adopt  laws  of  their  own  making.1 

For  over  ten  years  after  1638  no  definite  organization  of 
the  assemblies  was  established ;  on  some  occasions  they  were 
pure  democratic  meetings,  with  the  proxy  privilege ;  in  other 
cases  they  were  truly  representative  bodies ;  while  sometimes, 
as  in  the  first  gathering,  there  was  a  combination  of  these 
two  principles.  Within  this  period,  also,  the  separation  of 
the  councillors  from  the  freemen  and  burgesses  was  ac 
complished  and  a  bicameral  system  originated.2  A  few  de 
tails  of  these  early  assemblies  may  not  be  out  of  place  as 
showing  the  development  from  a  primary  to  a  representative 
assembly  system. 

The  writs  for  the  election  of  1638-9  directed  the  election 
of  burgesses  in  the  respective  hundreds,  and  summoned  cer 
tain  named  persons  to  appear  individually,3  thus  implying 
a  representative  body;  but  when  two  persons  from  Saint 
Maries  claimed  a  voice  because  they  did  not  assent  to  the 
election  of  burgesses,  they  were  admitted  to  the  assembly.4 
This  indefinite  organization  was  later  permitted  by  a  law 
of  the  same  assembly,  which  gave  the  right  to  a  seat  in  the 
legislature  to  councillors,  to  those  summoned  personally,  or 
who  were  chosen  by  the  freemen  as  burgesses,  or  who,  as 
freemen,  had  not  consented  to  the  burgesses  elected  in  any 
hundred  and  wished  personally  to  attend.5  This  assembly 
further  required  all  persons  over  eighteen  years  of  age  to 
swear  allegiance  to  the  king,  under  pain  of  confiscation  of  \y 
property  and  banishment  from  the  province,  thus  limiting  J 
the  rights  of  freemen  to  those  taking  the  oath.6  Another 
act  guaranteed  the  liberties  and  free  customs  of  English 


1  Archives,  Assembly,  1637-64,  11-22. 

2  See  Ibid.,  130,  141,  209,  272,  etc.,  for  bicameral  system. 

3  Ibid.,  27-31. 

4  Ibid.,  32. 

*  Ibid.,  74,  81.     The  burgesses  were  to  be  "some  one,  two,  or  more 
able  and  sufficient  men  for  the  hundred;"    and  those  personally  sum 
moned  were  to  be  "  Gentlemen  of  able  judgment  and  quality"  or  lords 
of  manors  when  such  have  been  erected. 
.,  40. 


52     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

subjects  to  "  all  the  Inhabitants  of  this  Province  being  chris- 
tians  (Slaves  excepted)."1 

An  assembly  of  October  12-24,  1640,  apparently  a  repre 
sentative  body,2  was  continued  until  1641,  although  the  free 
men  in  the  hundreds  were  permitted  to  substitute  new  bur 
gesses  for  the  old  ones  if  they  desired.3  Some  changes  were 
accordingly  made,  and  when  one  of  the  displaced  deputies 
claimed  a  seat  in  his  own  right  he  was  refused.4 

Another  change  to  the  primary  assembly  was  made  in 
March,  1641-2,  when  the  writs  for  electing  burgesses  5  were 
subsequently  changed  by  the  governor  for  new  writs  sum 
moning  all  the  freemen  of  the  province  to  attend  in  person 
or  to  appoint  their  proxies  or  deputies.6  This  assembly  was 
attended  by  the  governor,  five  councillors,  and  thirty-nine 
freemen  personally,  and  proxies  for  twenty-two  other  free 
men  were  held  by  those  present.  In  July  of  the  same  year  a 
representative  assembly  was  held ; 7  and  when  two  of  the 
members  asked  to  vote  for  the  proxies  of  Kent  Island  in 
habitants  they  were  refused,  being  permitted  only  to  cast 
their  votes  as  deputies.8  It  was  at  this  assembly  that  we 
notice  the  first  tendency  to  distinguish  between  the  burgesses 
on  one  hand  and  the  councillors  and  those  summoned  by 
personal  writ  on  the  other.9 

In  September,  1642,  the  third  assembly  for  that  year  met. 

1  Archives,  Assembly,  1637-64,  41. 

z  Ibid.,  87-89,  where  the  writs  of  election  are  given. 

8  Ibid.,  103-5. 

'Ibid.,  105. 

5  Ibid.,  113. 

*  Ibid.,  115.     "These  are  to  publish  and  proclaim  to  all  Persons  In 
habitants  within  this  Province  that  I  have  appointed  to  hold  a  General 
Assembly  of  all  the  Freemen  of  this  Province  on  monday  being  the 
one  and  twentieth  day  of  this  instant  month  and  therefore  to  require 
all  freemen  whatsoever  to  take  notice  hereof  and  either  to  repair  per 
sonally  ...  or  else  to  appoint  and  depute  some  other  for  their  Proxy 
or  deputy  during  the  said  Assembly  there  to  consult  and  advise  touchg 
the  enacting  of  new  Laws  and  other  important  affairs  of  this  Province." 

7  See  writs  for  election  of  burgesses,  Archives,  Assembly,  1637-64, 
127. 

8  Ibid.,  129. 

*  Ibid.,  131,  141. 


The  Suffrage  in  Maryland.  53 

This  was  a  primary  gathering,  the  writ  directing  "  all  free 
men  inhabiting  within  the  Province  to  be  at  the  said  Assem 
bly  at  the  time  &  place  aforesaid  either  by  themselves  or 
their  Deputies  or  Delegates  sufficiently  Authorized."  l  In 
accordance  with  this  order  there  appeared  the  governor  and 
eighteen  freemen  personally,  one  hundred  and  five  freemen 
were  represented  by  proxies,  fifteen  were  excused,  and  sev 
enty-six  were  fined  for  not  appearing,  either  by  themselves 
or  proxy.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  Brent,  an  inhabitant 
of  Kent  Island,  held  the  proxies  of  seventy-three  freemen  of 
that  island.  At  this  meeting  clear  evidence  is  given  of  the 
extent  of  the  suffrage  and  the  application  of  the  term  free 
man.  The  records  show  us  a  certain  Weston,  without  land 
or  certain  dwelling,  who  claimed  he  was  not  a  freeman,  but 
the  assembly  decided  he  was  such  and  must  give  attendance.2 
Such  an  interpretation  as  this  makes  the  word  freeman  mean, 
not  a  formally  admitted  member  of  a  distinct  corporation, 
but  a  man  who  is  free, — that  is,  not  bound  to  service  or  a 
slave. 

Proclamations  for  assemblies  of  all  the  freemen  were  again 
issued  in  December,  1642,  March,  1643,  and  November, 
1644,  but  no  record  of  these  assemblies  has  been  noticed.3 
In  January,  1647-8,  another  pure  democratic  assembly  was 
held.  According  to  the  governor's  writ,  this  was  to  be 
composed  of  "  All  and  Singular  the  Inhabts  of  this  Prov 
ince  either  by  their  psonall  appearances  or  by  Proxey  or 
delegate;"  and  by  way  of  caution  the  governor  advised  "  all 
such  as  shall  not  give  their  psonall  attendance  therein  that 
they  make  choyse  of  such  psons  for  their  Delegates  whose 
able  iudgm't  &  ffortunes  may  render  them  more  considerate 
to  the  wreale  publique."  4  A  petition,  unique  in  colonial  his 
tory,  was  made  to  this  assembly  by  Mrs.  Margaret  Brent, 

1  Archives,  Assembly,  1637-64,  167. 

2 "  Mr.  Thomas  Weston  being  called  pleaded  he  was  no  freeman 
because  he  had  no  land  nor  certain  dwelling  here,  etc.,  but  being  put 
to  the  question  it  was  voted  that  he  was  a  Freeman  and  as  such  bound 
to  his  appearance  by  himself  or  proxie,  whereupon  he  took  his  place 
in  the  house."  Archives,  Assembly,  1637-64,  170. 

3  Ibid.,  201. 

4  Ibid.,  213. 


54     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

who  was  executrix  for  the  deceased  governor,  Leonard  Cal- 
vert.  She  demanded  a  voice  and  vote  in  the  assembly,  and 
when  this  was  denied  she  protested  against  all  the  proceed 
ings  of  the  session.1  This  is  the  only  instance  found  in  all 
the  colonial  records  of  a  demand  for  the  suffrage  upon  the 
part  of  a  woman.2  It  was  in  this  assembly,  also,  that  the 
question  of  the  freemenship  of  a  certain  person  was  decided 
upon  the  basis  of  his  not  being  bound  to  service.3 

The  assembly  further  introduced  another  variation  in  the 
representative  system.  We  have  noted  that  freemen  might 
appear  in  person,  or  by  proxy,  and  in  some  cases  by  deputy. 
On  January  20,  1647-8,  the  freemen  in  assembly  went  even 
a  step  farther  and  selected  from  themselves  sixteen  persons, 
who  with  the  governor  and  council  were  to  constitute  an 
assembly.  A  quorum  of  this  secondary  assembly  was  to  be 
composed  of  the  governor,  the  clerk,  and  ten  freemen.4  This 
delegated  body  later  refused  to  permit  other  freemen  to  join 
them,  stating  that  the  sixteen  chosen  freemen  alone  had  a 
voice  in  the  assembly.5  In  this  way  a  representative  body 
was  erected  which  closely  corresponds  to  the  representative 
boards  chosen  from  the  commonalty  of  New  Amsterdam  at 
various  occasions  under  the  Dutch  rule,  and  is  somewhat 
similar  to  the  representative  commissioners  who  were  chosen 
in  Rhode  Island  at  about  this  time.  In  1649-50  the  writs 
permitted  the  election  of  delegates  or  the  attendance  of  free 
men  as  the  counties  or  hundreds  should  determine,  but  for 
bade  any  one  bringing  the  proxies  of  more  than  two  other 
freemen.6 

1  Jan.  21,  1647-8.    "  Came  Mrs.  Margaret  Brent  and  requested  to  have 
vote  in  the  house  for  herselfe  and  voyce  allso  for  that  att  the  last  Court 
3rd  Jan.:    it  was  ordered  that  the  said  Mrs.  Brent  was  to  be  looked 
uppon  and  received  as  his  Lps  attorney.    The  Govr  denyed  that  the  sd 
Mrs.  Brent  should  have  any  vote  in  the  house.    And  the  sd  Mrs.  Brent 
protested  agst  all  Proceedings  in  this  pnt  Assembly,  unlesse  shee  may 
be  pnt  and  have  vote  as  aforesd."    Archives,  Assembly,  1637-64,  215. 

2  An  instance  of  woman  suffrage  has  been  noted  in  New  York ;    see 
post,  192. 

s  Archives,  Assembly,  1637-64,  218-220. 
'Ibid.,  214. 
9  Ibid.,  217. 
,  259. 


The  Suffrage  in  Maryland.  5j5 

The  details  given  above  include  the  more  important  refer 
ences  to  this  interesting  system  of  primary  assemblies  and 
proxy  voting.  It  will  be  noticed  that  the  franchise  was  co 
extensive  with  free  manhpod;  that  there  was  absolutely  no 
property  qualification,  and  evidently  no  religious  or  definite 
residence  restrictions.  The  demand  for  the  suffrage  by  a 
woman  also  shows  how  broad  must  have  been  the  prevailing 
ideas  upon  the  subject. 

During  the  years  1638-1650,  the  greater  number  of  the 
assemblies  were  supposed  to  be  meetings  of  all  the  freemen, 
but  it  must  not  be  imagined  that  any  complete  gathering  of 
all  the  inhabitants  ever  took  place.  From  the  first  the  proxy 
system  gave  the  freeman  an  excuse  to  stay  at  home,  of  which 
he  was  not  slow  to  take  advantage.  In  one  assembly  the 
eighteen  freemen  present  held  proxies  for  one  hundred  and 
five  others,  while  one  person  held  seventy-three  proxies;  in 
another  case  the  thirty-nine  present  held  proxies  for  twenty- 
two  others,  and  in  still  another  assembly  fifteen  named  per 
sons  and  "  divers  other  inhabitants"  held  proxies  for  ninety- 
three  freemen.1  There  can  bjLBfluJoubt  that  the  evils  of  such 
a  system  early  became  apparent.  Immediately  after  the  as 
sembly  of  1638,  protests  were  sent  to  the  proprietor  in  Eng 
land  against  a  system  by  which  no  man  could  be  sure  of  what 
he  hath,  "  but  he  that  canne  git  most  proxis  in  every  assembly 
shall  dispose  of  any  mans  estate  that  he  pleaseth."  2  It  was 
said  that  the  governor  and  his  friends,  by  the  many  proxies 
they  had  obtained,  had  been  able  to  do  whatever  they  wished 
without  any  restraint ; 3  and  the  fear  was  expressed  that 
"  any  factious  workingman,"  "  if  he  would  labor  for  it, 
might  quickly  get  an  over-swaying  voice  and  carry  by 
proxies  what  he  will."  4  In  spite  of  these  objections  to  the 
system,  or  perhaps  on  account  of  them,  the  governors  retained 
the  proxy  system  for  over  ten  years  before  the  assembly  was 
based  upon  the  equal  representation  of  geographical  or  cor 
porate  units. 

1  Archives,  Assembly,  1637-64,  214. 

2  Md.  Hist.  Soc.  Fund  Pub.,  1889,  Calvert  Papers,  164. 

3  Ibid.,  160. 

*  Ibid.,  169.    It  must  be  noted  that  these  objections  all  came  from  one 
of  the  strong  Catholic  settlers. 


56     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

Before  1648,  however,  there  began  another  movement, 
which  was  at  length  to  limit  the  suffrage  to  Protestants  and 
to  exclude  altogether  from  political  activity  those  who  had 
been  instrumental  in  founding  the  colony.  In  1642,  when 
at  least  a  majority,  or  perhaps  three- fourths,  of  the  popula 
tion  were  Protestants,1  a  feeling  of  discontent  arose  in  the 
province,2  which  was  not  allayed  by  acting  Governor  Brent's 
seizure  of  a  parliamentary  vessel  in  1644.  A  year  later  the 
extreme  Protestants  rose  in  rebellion  with  Richard  Ingle  as 
their  leader  and  drove  out  the  Catholic  priests  and  Governor 
Leonard  Calvert.  In  the  same  year  the  Protestants  of  the 
colony  wrote  to  England  setting  forth  the  tyrannical  nature 
of  their  government  under  the  popish  recusants,  who  were 
seducing  many  to  their  religion;  and  the  English  House  of 
Lords  acted  upon  these  petitions  by  suggesting  the  settling 
of  the  province  in  Protestant  hands.3  Petitions  and  counter- 
petitions  from  Lord  Baltimore  and  from  merchants  of  Lon 
don  were  also  sent  to  the  Lords  at  this  time.4  Governor 
Calvert  returned  to  the  province  in  1646,  drove  out  Ingle, 
and  restored  the  proprietary  party.  In  the  meantime  the 
proprietor  attempted  to  secure  his  position  in  the  colony. 
This  was  done  by  commissioning  Protestants  to  the  principal 
offices,  by  granting  amnesty,  by  proposing  religious  tolera 
tion,  and  by  requiring  a  stricter  oath  of  allegiance  to  the 
proprietor.  As  early  as  1638-9  such  an  oath  had  been  re 
quired  of  all  inhabitants  over  eighteen  years  of  age,5  and 
now,  in  1648°  and  i65o,7  additional  clauses  were  added  to 

1  B.  F.  Johnson,  Founding  of  Md.,  32. 
1  Ibid.,  95. 

3  Archives,  Council,  1636-67,  164,  173. 
*Ibid.,  180,  181. 

6  Archives,  Assembly,  1637-64,  40. 
'  Archives,  Council,  1636^67,  196. 

7  Archives,  Assembly,   1637-64,   304.      This  oath   provided  that   the 
affiant  be  true  and  faithful  to  the  proprietor;    that  he  would  protect 
and  maintain  his  lordship's  interests  and  privileges;    that  he  would 
make  known  any  plots  or  conspiracies  to  the  proprietor;   that  he  would 
accept  no  lands  in  Maryland  from  the  Indians  but  subject  to  the  use 
of  the  proprietor ;   and  would  take  no  lands  from  any  one  by  purchase 
or  otherwise,  except  where  legal  title  came  from  the  proprietor. 


The  Suffrage  in  Maryland.  57 

these  oaths.    During  this  period  the  famous  act  of  toleration 
of  April  21,  1649,  was  passed.1 

But  neither  the  act  of  toleration  nor  the  stringent  oaths 
could  keep  the  province  in  Baltimore's  control.  Interests  in 
England  and  the  colony  were  working  against  him;  and 
when,  in  September,  1651,  the  English  Council  of  State  ap 
pointed  a  commission  to  reduce  all  the  plantations  on  Chesa 
peake  Bay,  one  of  the  four  commissioners  was  the  William 
Claiborne  who  had  already  caused  so  much  trouble  to  the 
colony.2  After  settling  affairs  in  Virginia  the  commission 
ers  turned  their  attention  to  Maryland,  where  on  March  29, 
1652,  they  issued  a  proclamation  from  St.  Mary's  calling 
an  assembly,  but  limiting  the  suffrage  in  the  election  for 
burgesses  to  those  who  would  promise  to  be  faithful  to  the 
commonwealth  as  established  in  England.3  Governor  Stone 
and  his  council  agreed  to  this  declaration,  but  two  years 
later,  under  directions  from  Baltimore,  Stone  issued  writs 
in  the  proprietor's  name,  and,  when  the  commissioners  pro 
tested,  he  appealed  to  arms,4  but  was  soon  overcome  by  the 
Puritan  forces.  The  commissioners  thereupon  issued  com 
missions  to  ten  persons  to  care  for  the  peace  and  administra 
tion  of  justice  in  place  of  the  proprietors,  the  governor,  and 
council.5  In  this  commission  occurs  the  first  formal  exclu 
sion  of  Catholics  from  political  activity.  The  ten  commis 
sioners  are  instructed, 

"Alsoe  that  they  Sumon  an  Assembly  to  begin  on  the  20th  day  of 
October  Next.    For  which  Assembly  all  Such  Shall  be  disabled  to  give 

1  For  this  act  see  "  The  Foundation  of  Maryland  and  the  Origin  of 
the  Act  Concerning  Religion  of  April  21,  1649,"  by  B.  F.  Johnson,  in 
Md,  Hist.  Soc.  Fund  Pub.,  1883,  No.  18;    and  Church  and  State  in 
Early  Maryland,  George   Petrie,  Johns  Hopkins   Univ.  Studies,   loth 
Series,  No.  4. 

2  McMahon,  Md.,  204. 

3  Archives,  Council,  1636-67,  271.     The  electors  must  subscribe  the 
following  engagement :  "  We  whose  names  are  Subscribed  do  promise 
and  engage  our  selves  to  be  true  and  faithful  to  the  Commonwealth  of 
England  as  it  is  now  established  without  King  or  House  of  Lords." 

4  Ibid.,  300  ff. 
6  Ibid.,  311. 


58     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

any  Vote  or  to  be  Elected  Members  thereof  as  have  borne  arms  in  Warr 
against  the  Parliament  or  doe  profess  the  Roman  Catholick  Religion."  * 

An  assembly  summoned  in  accordance  with  this  provision 
met  in  October,  1654,  and  in  its  first  act  gave  recognition 
to  the  Protector's  power  in  Maryland,  directed  that  no  change 
could  be  made  in  the  government  except  by  order  from 
the  Protector,  and  required  all  persons  in  express  terms 
to  own  their  subjection  to  the  present  government.2  Those 
refusing,  or  speaking  and  acting  against  the  government, 
were  to  be  considered  offenders  against  the  Protector.  The 
repressive  measures  were  successful  and  the  Catholics  appear 
to  have  refrained  from  voting.3  The  assembly  showed  its 
anti-Catholic  feeling  by  repealing  the  religious  liberty  act 
of  1649  and  passing  another  which  declared  Catholics  with 
out  the  protection  of  the  laws,  while  it  permitted  freedom 
of  religion  to  other  Christians.4 

1  Archives,  Council,  1637-67,  313. 
"Archives,  Assembly,  1637-64,  339. 

3  When  two  burgesses  from  St.  Mary's  refused  to  subscribe  to  the  new 
agreement,  urging  their  former  oath  to  Baltimore,  they  were  refused 
seats  in  the  house.  A  new  election  resulted  in  the  unanimous  choice 
of  two  delegates  who  were  ready  to  take  the  oath  (ibid.}.  The  una 
nimity  in  the  election  shows  how  well  the  policy  of  repression  was 
working. 
*  "  An  act  Concerning  Religion." 

"  It  is  Enacted  and  declared  in  the  Name  of  his  Highness  the 
Lord  Protector  with  the  consent  and  by  the  authority  of  the 
present  General  Assembly.  That  none  who  profess  and  Exer 
cise  the  Popish  Religion  Commonly  known  by  the  Name  of 
the  Roman  Catholick  Religion  can  be  protected  in  this  Prov 
ince  by  the  Lawes  of  England  formerly  established  and  yet 
unrepealed  nor  by  the  Government  of  the  Commonwealth  of 
England,  Scotland,  and  Ireland  and  the  Dominions  thereunto 
belonging  Published  by  his  Highness  the  Lord  Protector,  but 
are  to  be  restrained  from  the  Exercise  thereof,  Therefore  all 
and  Every  person  or  persons  concerned  in  the  Law  aforesaid 
are  required  to  take  notice 

"  Such  as  profess  faith  in  God  by  Jesus  Christ  (although 
differing  in  Judgment  from  the  Doctrine  worship  &  Discipline 
publickly  held  forth  shall  not  be  restrained  from  but  shall  be 
protected  in  the  profession  of  the  faith)  &  Exercise  of  their 


The  Suffrage  in  Maryland.  59 

Pending  a  decision  by  Cromwell  upon  the  rights  of  Balti 
more,  the  latter  commissioned  a  new  governor  for  Mary 
land,1  and  drew  up  an  agreement  for  the  surrender  of  the 
province  to  him,2  but  instructed  his  governor  to  require  an 
oath  of  allegiance  and  submission  from  all  taking  out  land 
warrants.3  These  promises  and  instructions  were  discussed 
between  Governor  Fendall  and  the  Cromwellian  commis 
sioners,4  and  the  latter  insisted  upon  a  number  of  changes  in 
them.  As  finally  adopted  5  the  agreement  bound  Baltimore 
to  make  no  question  concerning  the  acts  of  officials  during 
the  late  years ;  fees  and  taxes  arising  during  the  period  were 
to  be  paid,  and  the  old  oath  of  fidelity  was  not  to  be  pressed, 
the  people,  however,  engaging  to  submit  to  the  proprietor's 
authority.  A  special  provision  was  inserted  prohibiting  any 
political  disqualifications  on  account  of  the  late  disorders. 
It  was  agreed 

"  That  no  person  whatsoever  within  this  Province  shall  (by  reason 
of  Any  Act  or  Passage  made  or  don  in  relation  to  the  late  Alteration 
of  the  Government  made  in  the  yeare  one  thousand  Six  hundred 
fifty-two)  bee  deemed  or  hereafter  made  vncapable  of  Electing,  or  to  be 
Elected  to  all  future  Assemblies."  8 

By  these  provisions  the  Protestants  and  the  anti-proprietary 
party  hoped  to  shield  themselves  against  any  return  of  per 
secution  upon  themselves.  All  were  expected  to  assent  to 

Religion  so  as  they  abuse  not  this  liberty  to  the  injury  of  others 
The  disturbance  of  the  publique  peace  on  their  part,  Provided 
that  this  Liberty  be  not  Extended  to  popery  or  prelacy  nor  to 
such  as  under  the  profession  of  Christ  hold  forth  and  practice 
Licentiousness." 

See  Md.  Hist.  Soc.  Fund  Pub.,  No.  7,  91-3,  for  treatment  of  Catholics. 

1  July  10,  1656.    Archives,  Council,  1636-67,  323. 

2  Nov.  30,   1657,  ibid.,  332.     Baltimore  promised  that  he  would  not 
question  any  of  the  recent  offences,  never  repeal  the  act  for  liberty  of 
conscience,  but  would  permit  those  who  had  been  in  opposition  to  take 
up  land  in  accordance  with  earlier  conditions,  and  would  not  interfere 
with  those  desiring  to  leave  the  province  within  a  year's  time. 

8  Archives,  Council,  1636-67,  335~39- 

4  Ibid.,  369. 

5  On  March  24,  1657-8,  Archives,  Assembly,  1637-64,  369.        9  Ibid. 


60     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

the  new  settlement,  and  those  who  refused  to  agree  were, 
by  the  governor's  proclamation,  to  be  proceeded  against  as 
"  Rebbells  &  traitors."  l 

It  is  not  necessary  for  our  purpose  to  enter  into  the  details 
of  the  strange  conspiracy  of  Baltimore's  governor,  Fendall, 
which  came  shortly  after  this  settlement,  except  to  notice 
that  an  incidental  result  was  the  disfranchisement  of  those 
interested  in  it.2  This  disfranchisement  may  have  been  the 
cause  for  the  explicit  statement  of  the  power  of  the  sheriff 
in  elections,  which  was  made  in  the  spring  of  1661.  In 
answer  to  a  protest  from  the  lower  house,  the  governor  and 
council  said  that  the  sheriffs  had  the  right  to  restrain  those 
not  legally  qualified  from  voting  or  from  being  elected  to 
office,  and  that  no  one  having  committed  a  crime  could  be 
elected.3 

The  period  from  1649  to  I66i  was  one  of  great  con 
fusion  in  Maryland.  The  proprietary  dues  were  onerous  to 
the  colonists,  and  his  religion  must  have  been  obnoxious  to 
many  of  them.  In  the  contests  which  arose  in  the  colony, 
the  differences  were  not  settled  at  the  polls,  but  by  physical 
force.  Hence,  in  order  to  maintain  in  the  elections  what 
force  had  gained,  it  was  often  necessary  to  introduce  politi 
cal  disfranchisement,  and  this  is  the  principal  characteristic 
of  the  period.  The  victorious  party  disfranchised  its  oppo- 
ents,  and  then  had  the  pleasure  of  witnessing  unanimous 
elections.4  Before  restoring  the  colony  to  Baltimore,  the 
Protestants  exacted  a  promise  that  they  should  not  be  dis- 

*  Archives,  Council,  1636-67,  352-3.  Among  those  refusing  to  sign 
the  agreement  were  some  Quakers. 

2  For  the  principal  facts  of  this  period,  see  Browne,  Maryland,  the 
History  of  a  Palatinate,  93-103.  See  Archives,  Council,  1636-67, 
404-418,  for  cases  of  disfranchisement.  Three  members  of  the  assem 
bly  who  had  joined  Fendall  were  debarred  from  public  office  for  seven 
years,  and  rendered  incapable  of  electing  or  being  elected  to  any  future 
assembly  unless  the  governor  should  pardon  them.  Fendall  and  Gerrard 
were  permitted  to  keep  their  property,  but  were  forever  disfranchised 
(ibid.,  406,  407).  A  later  attempt  was  made  to  elect  Fendall  to  the 
legislature  (Archives,  Council,  1671-81,  192). 

8  Archives,  Assembly,  1637-64,  395-98. 

4  See  the  election  of  1654,  previously  mentioned. 


The  Suffrage  in  Maryland.  61 

franchised  for  their  late  conduct.     The  period  closes  with 
the  Fendall  conspiracy  and  new  political  punishments. 

The  next  change  in  the  suffrage  was  upon  a  totally  differ 
ent  basis.  The  religious  restrictions  were  not  revived  until 
1688,  but  the  new  movement  was  for  a  property  qualification 
upon  voters.  It  has  been  seen  upon  what  a  broad  basis  the 
early  suffrage  rested;  and  during  all  the  period  of  civil 
strife  no  effort  appears  to  have  been  made  to  restrict  the 
suffrage  to  freeholders  or  those  holding  a  certain  amount  of 
property.  Writing  in  1666,  George  Alsop  could  say  re 
specting  the  assembly, 

"  These  men  that  determine  on  these  matters  for  the  Republique  are 
called  Burgesses,  and  they  commonly  sit  in  Junto  about  six  weeks, 
being  for  the  most  part  good  ordinary  Householders  of  the  several 
Counties,  which  do  more  by  a  plain  and  honest  Conscience  than  by 
artificial  Syllogisms  drest  up  in  gilded  Orations."  * 

A  conflict  of  interests  between  the  freeholders  and  the 
landless  freemen  is  first  evident  from  the  records  in  1666, 
when  the  project  for  a  general  cessation  of  tobacco  planting 
was  under  discussion.  The  price  of  tobacco  had  fallen  so 
low  that  it  was  proposed  to  unite  Maryland,  Virginia,  and 
North  Carolina  in  a  general  agreement  to  restrict  the  pro 
duction  of  their  great  staple.  The  lower  house  opposed  this 
suggestion  of  the  council  upon  the  ground  that  it  would  have 
a  tendency  to  drive  out  the  greater  part  of  the  population, 
and  thus  deprive  the  province  of  the  strong  young  freemen.2 
The  upper  house  rejoined  that  there  was  no  place  to  which 
the  freemen  could  go,  since  Virginia  also  would  cease  tobacco 
production;  but  even  if  they  should  leave,  they  might 
thereby  strengthen  the  position  of  the  freeholders,  and  the 
council  protested  they  would  not  keep  the  freemen  if  they 
must  thereby  ignore  the  welfare  of  the  freeholders.  The 
freeholders,  the  upper  house  continued,  "  are  the  Strength 
&  only  Strength  of  this  Province,  not  the  Freemen.  It  is 
their  persons,  purses,  &  Stocks  must  bear  the  Burthen  of  the 
Government,  both  in  Peace  &  War  &  not  Freemen,  who  can 

1  A  Character  of  the  Province  of  Maryland,  London,  1666 ;    reprinted 
in  Md.  Hist.  Soc.  Fund  Pub.,  1880,  No.  15,  47- 

2  Archives,  Assembly,  1666-76,  44  ff. 


62     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

easily  abandon  Us."  1  These  reasons  convinced  the  lower 
house,  and  after  "  takeing  them  into  their  serious  Considera 
tion  &  debateing  thereupon"  they  replied  that  they  "  doe  rest 
sattisfyed."  The  proprietor,  however,  disapproved  of  this 
law,  in  spite  of  the  assent  of  Virginia  and  North  Carolina, 
urging  that  it  would  hurt  his  majesty's  customs  and  would 
injure  the  poor  settlers  of  the  province  who  had  so  recently 
been  sacrificed  by  the  assembly.3 

The  assembly  of  1666  had  ignored  the  economic  rights  of 
the  poor  freemen,  but  shortly  afterwards  a  further  step 
against  them  was  taken  by  the  refusal  to  permit  them  to 
exercise  the  political  privileges  they  had  enjoyed  since  the 
founding  of  the  colony.  The  movement  towards  a  restricted 
suffrage  was  taken  up  by  the  governor,  and  on  December 
1 8,  1670,  a  proprietary  writ  directed  the  sheriffs  to  admit  as 
electors  only  those  freemen  of  the  counties  who  possessed  a 
visible  seated  plantation  of  at  least  fifty  acres  ofjand^  or 
owned  a  visible  personal  estate  of  forty  ~poun3sjit  theleast. 
The  same  qualifications  were  imposed  upon  deputies.4 

1  Archives,  Assembly,  1666-76,  47. 

2  Ibid.,  49- 

3  Archives,  Council,  1636-67,  561. 

4  Ibid.,  77-8. 

"  These  are  to  authorize  and  require  you  to  call  together  this 
prest  month  of  december  four  or  more  of  the  Commissioners 
of  your  County  with  the  Clerk  whom  you  are  hereby  required 
to  impower  to  sit  as  a  Court  and  during  their  sitting  by  Virtue 
of  your  Office  to  make  or  Cause  to  be  made  publick  Proclama 
tion  thereby  giving  notice  to  all  the  freemen  of  your  said 
County  who  [have]  within  the  said  County  Visible  seated  Plan 
tations  of  fifty  Acres  of  Land  at  the  least  or  Visible  personal 
Estates  to  the  Value  of  forty  Pounds  Sterling  at  the  least  re 
quiring  them  to  appear  at  the  next  County  Court  to  be  holden 
for  the  said  County  at  a  Certain  day  in  the  month  next  fol 
lowing  after  such  Proclamation  made  for  the  election  and 
choosing  of  Deputies  and  Delegates  to  serve  for  your  said 
County  in  a  General  Assembly  shortly  after  to  be  called  by 
special  writ  at  which  time  and  place  according  to  the  said 
Proclamation  the  said  freemen  so  required  to  appear  or  the 
Major  Part  of  such  of  them  as  shall  thereupon  appear  shall 
and  may  and  are  hereby  Authorized  and  required  to  elect  and 


The  Suffrage  in  Maryland.  63 

About  the  same  time  the  settlement  at  St.  Mary's  was 
given  separate  representation;  the  mayor,  recorder,  alder 
men,  and  common  council  having  the  right  to  elect  the  two 
delegates  from  the  city.1  This  corporation  franchise  was 
used  in  Maryland  by  the  governors  in  the  same  way  as  the 
kings  used  the  borough  elections  in  England.  Charles  Cal 
vert,  writing  to  his  father  the  proprietor,  on  April  26,  1672, 
describes  the  manner  in  which  the  new  city  privileges  could 
be  taken  advantage  of  by  the  proprietary  party. 

"  Mr-  Nottly  is  now  Speaker  of  or  Assembly,  hee  and  Mr-  John 
Moorecraft  beinge  Chossen  Burgesses  for  the  Citty  of  St.  Maries,  And 
by  that  Meanes  I  gott  him  into  the  Assembly,  Though  Doctor  Wharton 
bee  a  good  vnderstandinge  Man  yett  Dr-  Morecraft  is  much  more  for 
our  purpose,  being  the  best  Lawyer  in  the  Country,  and  has  alwayes 
been  (vpon  other  Assemblyes)  A  great  Asserter  of  yor  LoPPs  Charter 
and  the  Rights  &  priviledges  thereof,  I  durst  not  putt  itt  to  an  Election 
in  the  Countyes  Butt  took  this  way  which  I  Knew  would  Certainely  doe 
what  I  desired."  z 

The  limitation  of  political  power  was  carried  a  step  farther 
in  1674,  when  the  assembly  passed  a  law  requiring  grand 
jurors  to  be  chosen  from  the  freeholders  of  the  respective 
counties.3 

In  1675  the  proprietor,  Charles  Calvert,  came  to  the  prov 
ince,  and  in  the  spring  of  the  next  year  issued  writs  for  the 
election  of  four  deputies  from  each  county  to  the  assembly,4 
apparently  retaining  the  property  qualifications  as  laid  down 
in  1670.  After  the  elections  had  been  completed,  the  pro 
prietor  summoned  only  two  of  the  four  elected  delegates 
from  each  county.  The  assembly  thus  constituted  protested 
against  the  action  of  the  proprietor  in  refusing  to  summon 

choose   four   several   sufficient   freemen   of  your   said   County 
each  of  them  having  a  visible  seated  Plantation  of  fifty  Acres 
of  Land  at  the  least  or  a  Visible  personal   Estate  of  Forty 
Pounds  Sterling  at  the  least  within  your  said  County." 
1  Mereness,  Maryland  as  a  Proprietary  Province,  200. 

-  Maryland  Hist.  Soc.  Fund  Pub.,  Calvert  Papers,  264. 
8  Archives,  Assembly,  1666-76,  392. 

*  Ibid.,  507  ff. ;    Council,  1671-81,  127-140;    Council,  1687-93,  102-103. 


64     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

the  other  deputies,  and  petitioned  him  to  admit  to  the  assem 
bly  as  many  deputies  as  the  writs  directed  should  be  elected 
in  each  county.  The  proprietor  acceded  to  this  request  upon 
the  condition  that  the  members  of  assemblies  should  take  an 
oath  of  allegiance  to  the  proprietor  before  they  elected  their 
speaker.1 

Baltimore  left  the  province  shortly  after  the  meeting  of 
this  assembly,  and  in  the  following  fall  the  heavy  taxes  and 
the  limitations  upon  the  suffrage  were  criticised  in  a  paper 
which  the  proprietary  party  called  a  seditious  document 
issued  "  under  the  specious  pretences  of  the  preservation  of 
The  Liberties  of  the  ffreemen  of  this  Province."  2  An  at 
tempt  at  armed  rebellion  by  some  sixty  inhabitants  of  Cal- 
vert  County  on  Sunday,  September  3,  1676,  failed,  and  on 
the  following  day  a  general  pardon  was  proclaimed.3  The 
grievances  of  the  rebels  were  the  heavy  taxes,  the  poll-tax 
which  required  poor  freemen  to  pay  as  much  as  the  rich,  and 
the  terms  of  the  proprietary  writs  which  excluded  poor  free 
men  from  the  suffrage.4 

The  governor  and  council  replied  to  the  charges  of  the 
rebels  in  "  a  Remonstrance  of  the  true  State  of  the  Province 
&  of  the  causes  &  reasons  of  the  publique  Taxes."  5  They 
placed  the  necessity  for  the  heavy  taxes  upon  the  Indian 
wars  and  the  expenses  for  protection,  and  justified  the  equal 
poll-taxes  by  the  argument  that  poor  freemen  were  compelled 
to  pay  for  themselves  alone,  while  the  rich  were  taxed  for  all 
their  servants  and  slaves.  Their  answer  to  the  charge  of 
restricted  suffrage  was  more  elaborate,  and  as  expressing 
the  seventeenth  century  theory  of  representation  and  suf 
frage  is  worth  quoting  entire: 


1  Archives,  Assembly,  1666-76,  507. 

2  Archives,  Council,  1671-81,  127. 

8  Ibid.,  128.  Four  named  persons  were  outlawed.  This  movement 
should  be  compared  to  the  Bacon  Rebellion  in  Virginia. 

4  Ibid.,  137.  The  ideas  of  the  protest  are  not  expressed  in  the  clearest 
words :  "  the  debarring  of  some  ffreemen  who  have  nothing  to  entitle 
them  to  a  being  in  this  Province,  from  voting  in  the  Choice  of  Dele 
gates  for  makeing  of  the  Laws." 

6  Ibid.,  137-140. 


The  Suffrage  in  Maryland.  65 

"As  to  the  votes  of  ffreemen  who  have  neither  lands  nor 
visible  personall  Estate,  in  the  Eleccon  of  Delegates  for  the 
Assembly  wee  doe  say,  that  as  the  Lord  Proprietary  can  call 
assemblys  by  his  Patent  whensoever  &  in  what  manner  to  him 
shall  seeme  most  fitt  &  convenient,  Itt  is  no  wonder  that  he 
should  chuse  this  as  the  fittest  &  most  convenient  manner,  & 
most  agreeable  to  the  Lawe  and  Custome  of  England  For  what 
man  in  England  can  be  admitted  to  the  Election  of  Parliament 
men  that  hath  not  a  visible  Estate  in  lands  or  Goods?  nay  are 
there  not  infinite  numbers  concluded  [sic]  in  Parliament  with 
out  vote  in  the  Elections,  though  they  have  great  Estates  both 
in  lands  &  Goods?  As  namely  all  unmarryed  women  be  their 
Estates  in  lands  never  so  great,  &  all  bothe  men  &  woman 
living  out  of  Corporations,  haveing  no  Estates  in  land  be  their 
Personall  Estates  never  so  considerable  This  we  say  so  to  the 
point  of  reason  &  law.  But  if  itt  be  thought  an  unkinde  way 
of  preceeding  with  the  poore  ffreeman,  or  that  the  ffreeman  be 
dearer  To  the  ^freeholder  then  himselfe  his  Wife  children  & 
fortune,  &  that  they  will  needs  Submitt  themselves  &  all  that 
is  deare  to  them  to  be  disposed  of  by  the  votes  of  the  ffreemen 
that  have  nothing,  &  that  can  as  easily  carry  themselves  out  of 
the  reach  of  Lawes  by  themselves  made,  to  the  prejudice  of  the 
ffreeholder  as  change  their  Cloaths  Wee  doe  promise  to  pro 
pound  the  case  of  the  indigent  ffreemen  to  his  LordPP  att  his 
returne  &  to  offer  him  such  reasons  &  motives  as  may  incline 
him  to  permitt  the  next  Election  to  be  made  by  the  Votes  of 
all  the  ffreemen  indifferently,  this  is  all  that  lyes  in  our  powers 
to  doe  in  this  case,  &  this  we  doubt  not  but  to  Obtaine  from  his 
Lordshipp,  if  the  quiett  demeanour  of  the  ffreemen  in  the  in 
terim  doe  but  concurr  with  our  Endeavours,  to  Oblige  his  Lord 
shipp  to  have  a  favorable  regard  of  their  Interests." 

The  view  given  in  this  proclamation  is  the  one  we  have 
seen  advanced  ten  years  earlier  and  gradually  gaining 
strength.  Two  years  after  the  armed  attempt  to  withstand 
this  restricting  tendency,  the  suffrage  limitation  was  estab 
lished  by  law.  The  assembly  of  October  and  November, 
1678,  after  discussing  elections  and  the  suffrage  at  consid 
erable  length,  passed  the  first  general  election  law  of  the 
province.1  The  act  remained  in  force  but  a  short  time,  being 

1  Archives,  Assembly,  1678-83,  24-37  passim.     The  records  of  this 
session  are  badly  mutilated,  and  it  is  difficult  to  discern  the  respective 

5 


66     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

disapproved  by  the  proprietor  in  1681 ; 1  but  its  terms  were 
in  part  inserted  into  the  proprietary  writs  and  copied  almost 
verbatim  in  the  election  law  of  1692.2  For  these  reasons 
the  provisions  of  the  act  of  1678  have  a  value  not  implied 
by  the  short  duration  of  the  act  itself.  Although  the  act 
followed  closely  the  forms  prescribed  in  the  proprietary  writ 
of  1670,  yet  it  met  with  Baltimore's  disapproval,  perhaps 
because  it  was  passed  in  an  assembly  not  organized  accord 
ing  to  his  wishes,  and  because  it  placed  the  number  of  dele 
gates  at  four  from  each  county.3 

In  its  preamble  the  act4  reverts  to  the  English  custom, 
and  declares  the  "  best  rule  for  this  Province  to  follow  in 
Electing  such  Delegates  &  representatives  is  the  presidents 
[precedents]  of  the  Proceedings  in  Parliament  in  England 
as  neere  as  the  Constitution  of  this  Province  will  admitt." 
The  act  provided  for  the  election  of  four  burgesses  in  each 
county  and  two  citizens  from  the  city  of  St.  Mary's.  A 
form  of  election  writ  is  given  in  the  act,  and  within  the  writ 
occur  the  qualifications  for  the  suffrage.  The  sheriff  is 
directed 

"...  by  vertue  of  your  office  to  make  or  Cause  to  be  made  Publick 
Proclamacon  thereby  giveing  notice  to  all  the  freemen  of  your  said 
County  who  have  within  your  said  County  a  freehold  of  fifty  acres 
of  Land  or  a  visible  personall  Estate  of  forty  pounds  starling  att 
least  Requireing  them  to  appeare  att  the  next  County  Court  ...  at  a 
Certaine  day  .  .  .  for  the  electing  and  Chusing  of  Deputyes  and  dele 
gates  to  serve  for  your  County  in  a  Generall  Assembly.  ..." 

The  two  representatives  for  the  city  of  St.  Mary's  were  to 
be  chosen  by  the  mayor,  recorder,  aldermen,  and  common 

views  of  the  assembly  and  council.  Apparently  the  council  wished  to 
retain  the  qualification  "  seated"  pertaining  to  the  elector's  freehold, 
which  had  been  included  in  the  proprietary  writ  of  1670;  while  the 
lower  house  opposed  this.  The  upper  house  finally  agreed  to  the 
omission  of  the  word  (ibid.,  31). 

1  By  proclamation  of  June  27,  1681,  Archives,  Council,  1671-81,  378. 

2  See  post. 

3  Archives,   Council,   1671-81,  378;    Assembly,   1684-92,   79. 

* "  An  act  directing  the  manner  of  Electing  and  Summoning  Dele 
gates  and  Representatives  to  serve  in  succeeding  Assembiyes."  Ar 
chives,  Assembly,  1678-83,  60  ff. 


The  Suffrage  in  Maryland.  67 

council  of  that  city.  Delegates  were  to  possess  within  the 
county  represented  the  qualifications  required  of  electors. 
No  sheriff  or  under-sheriff  could  sit  in  the  lower  house  during 
his  term  of  office,  and  no  ordinary  keeper  could  be  elected 
or  serve  in  the  assembly  while  keeping  an  ordinary.  The 
property  qualifications  of  this  act  were  later  adopted  by  the 
proprietor  and  by  subsequent  legislatures,  and  in  the  form 
of  fifty  acres  of  freehold  or  forty  pounds  personal  estate 
they  continued  with  but  slight  change  down  to  the  Revolu 
tion. 

Lord  Baltimore  expressed  his  disapproval  of  the  election 
act  of  1678  in  a  public  proclamation,  by  which  he  changed 
the  number  of  delegates  for  each  county  from  four  to  two ; 1 
and  shortly  afterwards,  on  September  6,  1681,  he  fixed  the 
electoral  process  by  means  of  a  proprietary  ordinance.2  In 
the  preamble  to  this  ordinance  it  was  stated  that  the  method 
of  assembling  the  deputies  of  the  freemen  had,  from  the 
foundation  of  the  province,  been  uncertain,  and  that  the 
proprietor  now  desired  to  settle  the  minds  of  the  freemen 
and  establish  a  sure  foundation  for  the  future  peace  of  the 
province.  The  ordinance  gave  the  form  of  writ  containing 
the  suffrage  qualifications  in  exactly  the  words  used  by  the 
statute  of  1678;  it  provided,  however,  for  the  election  of 
but  two  delegates  in  every  county  or  any  corporation  having 
the  charter  right  to  elect  deputies,  and  fixed  the  same  prop 
erty  qualifications  for  voters  in  the  cities  or  towns  as  for 
those  in  the  counties.  The  promulgation  of  this  ordinance 
led  to  a  long  contest  in  the  following  assembly,  but  the  upper 
house  supported  the  legality  and  propriety  of  Baltimore's  or 
dinance.3  The  assembly  of  1683  also  took  up  the  matter,  and 
three  bills  concerning  the  election  of  delegates  were  intro 
duced,  but  apparently  they  failed  to  receive  the  proprietor's 
approval.4  Thus  during  the  period  1670-1689  proprietary 
ordinances  or  writs  were  the  foundation,  under  the  royal 
charter,  for  the  suffrage  and  the  representative  system.  The 


1  Archives,  Council,  1671-81,  378. 

2  Ibid.,  1681-86,  15-17;   McMahon.  History  of  Maryland,  443~5- 
8  Archives,  Assembly,  1678-83,  345~j6o  f f. 

4  Ibid.,  445-604  passim. 


68     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

terms  of  the  original  writ  of  1670  were  accepted  by  the  leg 
islature  in  1678  with  but  slight  change,  and  these  changes 
incorporated  into  the  ordinance  of  1681. 

After  almost  thirty  years  of  religious  quiet  in  the  colony, 
the  spirit  of  faction  and  religious  strife  again  appeared  in 
the  train  of  similar  conditions  in  England.  As  the  Puritan 
movement  in  England  sent  its  waves  of  influence  into  the 
province  of  Maryland,  so  the  Revolution  of  1688  was  re 
acted  in  miniature  in  America.  It  was  unfortunate  for  the 
peace  of  Maryland  that  in  1688  the  proprietor  was  not  pres 
ent  in  person  in  the  colony,  and  that  the  administration  was 
in  the  hands  of  the  council  acting  under  a  president 1  as 
deputy  governors.  The  assembly  meeting  in  the  fall  of  1688 
began  with  factional  disputes.  The  president  asked  both 
houses  to  take  the  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  proprietor,  and 
when  the  lower  house  refused  to  do  so,  he  prorogued  the 
assembly  and  in  the  meantime  exercised  his  legal  right  to 
administer  the  oath  to  the  deputies  as  individuals.2  Assem 
bling  after  the  prorogation,  the  lower  house  drew  up  a  list 
of  eight  grievances  against  the  proprietary  government, 
dealing  largely  with  economic  evils.  Among  these  were  the 
proprietor's  demand  for  quit-rents  in  money  when  he  had 
promised  to  receive  them  in  tobacco ;  the  failure  to  establish 
ports;  the  collection  of  illegal  fees;  the  meeting  of  the  pro 
vincial  court  in  the  inconvenient  winter  time;  and  the  ar 
resting  persons  without  stating  the  cause  of  the  arrest.3 
There  is  no  mention  in  these  grievances  of  any  violation  of 
real  religious  or  political  rights;  they  are  mainly  adminis 
trative  details  which  proved  unpopular. 

The  following  year  a  stronger  opposition  to  the  govern 
ment  was  shown.  The  proprietor's  agents  in  Maryland  took 
no  steps  to  proclaim  the  new  monarchs  of  England,  and  this 
delay  gave  strength  to  rumors  of  Catholic  plots  and  con 
spiracies  with  the  Indians.4  An  association  of  the  discon- 

1  For  the  character  of  President  -William  Joseff,  see  B.  C.  Steiner, 
The  Protestant  Revolution  in  Maryland,  Amer.  Hist.  Assn.  Rept.,  1897, 
283-287. 

2  Archives,  Assembly,  1684-92,  148-63. 
zlbid.,  170. 

4  Upon  this  period,  see  Browne,  Maryland,  the  History  of  a  Pala- 


The  Suffrage  in  Maryland.  69 

tented  was  formed  called  "  An  Association  in  arms  for  the 
defense  of  the  Protestant  religion,  and  for  asserting  the  right 
of  King  William  and  queen  Mary  to  the  province  of  Mary 
land,  and  all  the  English  dominions."  1  Coode,  the  leader 
of  the  movement,  and  his  men  marched  on  St.  Mary's,  com 
pelled  the  president  and  council  to  surrender,  and  required 
the  exclusion  of  all  Catholics  from  office.2  The  leader  then 
sent  writs  for  an  election  by  the  Protestants  of  members  to 
a  convention,  the  writs  being  issued  in  the  name  of  "  the 
several  commanders,  officers,  and  gentlemen  associated  in 
arms  for  the  defense  of  the  Protestant  religion."  3  The 
elections  of  deputies  were  carried  through  very  irregularly; 
in  one  county  it  was  claimed  that  only  twenty  persons  par 
ticipated  in  the  election  and  one-half  of  these  were  not  legally 
qualified.4  In  other  cases  the  "  better  sort  of  the  people" 
held  aloof,  those  of  mean  and  humble  position  alone  sup 
porting  Coode,  while  drunken  soldiers  helped  the  cause  of 
the  revolutionists.5  One  writer  said, 

"  They  have  assumed  the  power  of  calling  an  Assembly  the  Election 
of  which  was  in  most  Countyes  awed  by  their  souldiers,  one  County 
disowned  their  power  and  would  chuse  noe  members  but  in  fine  they 
have  packed  up  an  Assembly  after  the  most  irregular  manner  that 
ever  was  knowne.  .  .  ." 6 


The  convention  thus  elected  held  perhaps  five  sessions  during 
the  next  two  years,7  at  one  of  which  they  appointed  a  rep 
resentative  committee  composed  of  two  persons  from  each 
of  ten  counties  to  administer  the  government.8 


tinate,  149-156;  B.  C.  Steiner,  The  Protestant  Revolution  in  Mary 
land,  passim;  F.  E.  Sparks,  Causes  of  the  Maryland  Revolution  of 
1689,  J.  H.  U.  Studies,  XIV. 

1McMahon,  237;    Browne,  152;    Steiner,  299-306. 

2  Archives,  Council,  1687-93,  107. 

a  McMahon,  240. 

4  Archives,  Council,  1687-93,  154. 

*  Ibid.,  114-118. 

9  Ibid.,  124. 

7  Steiner,  op.  cit.,  345,  351. 

8  Ibid.,  326,  333-4. 


70     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

In  many  of  these  details  the  movement  in  Maryland  closely 
parallels  that  which  took  place  at  the  same  time  in  New 
York.  There  is  this  difference,  however,  that  in  the  royal 
province  of  New  York  the  revolution  was  unnecessary  from 
the  Crown's  point  of  view,  while  in  Maryland  the  uprising 
gave  the  new  monarchs  an  opportunity  to  seize  control  of  a 
province  whose  proprietor  might  justly  be  suspected  of 
friendship  for  the  Catholic  cause  of  James  II.  William 
informally  recognized  the  revolution  in  Maryland,1  and  later 
took  advantage  of  it  to  establish  a  royal  government  in  the 
colony.  The  overturning  of  the  proprietor's  government  led 
to  the  exclusion  of  Catholics  from  all  political  power;  they 
had  no  share  in  the  election  of  the  convention,  which  was 
the  nominal  seat  of  authority  for  over  two  years,  and  they 
were  excluded  from  all  military  and  civil  offices. 

It  was  but  natural  that  Baltimore's  political  privileges 
should  be  declared  forfeited  2  and  a  royal  government  ap 
pointed  for  the  colony.  Governor  Copley's  commission  3 
directed  him  to  call  assemblies  of  the  freemen  of  the  province 
according  to  the  usage  of  the  province,  but  required  the 
delegates  to  take  the  oaths  and  test  enjoined  by  the  acts  of 
Parliament,  thereby  excluding  Catholics  from  the  assembly. 
Nothing  was  said,  however,  about  restraining  the  Catholics 
from  voting.  The  instructions  to  Copley  in  plain  terms 
limited  the  suffrage  to  freeholders : 

"  You  shall  take  care  that  the  Members  of  the  Assembly  be  elected 
only  by  Freeholders  as  being  most  agreeable  to  the  Custome  of  Eng 
land  to  which  you  are  as  near  as  may  be  to  conform  yourself."  4 

The  first  assembly  under  the  royal  government  met  in 
May  and  June,  1692,  and  at  once  the  question  of  the  oaths 
arose.5  The  election  committee  of  the  lower  house  had  a 
number  of  cases  before  it  6  arising  out  of  election  irregtilari- 

1  Archives,  Council,  1687-93,  167. 

'  Ibid.,  185. 

s  June  27,  1691,  Archives,  Council,  1687-93,  263. 

*  Archives,  Council,  1687-93,  271. 

B  Archives,  Assembly,  1684-92,  254. 

c  Ibid.,  352-366. 


The  Suffrage  in  Maryland.  71 

ties  and  refusals  to  take  the  oaths ;  it  reported  Colonel  Codd 
disqualified  because  of  seditious  practices,  and  of  John 
Hewitt  it  said  that,  "  being  a  man  in  sacred  orders  is 
thought  not  fitt  to  sitt  as  a  member  of  the  Lower  house."  * 
The  assembly  early  took  up  the  subject  of  elections,  and  an 
act  regulating  them  was  sent  from  the  lower  house  and 
agreed  to  by  the  upper  house  apparently  without  debate.2 
This  law,  entitled  "  An  Act  directing  the  manner  of  Ellects 
and  summoning  Delegates  and  Representatives  to  serve  in 
succeeding  assemblyes,"  3  gave  definite  statutory  form  to 
elections  and  the  representative  system,  both  of  which  had 
previously  rested  upon  the  writs  and  ordinances  of  the  pro 
prietor.  The  legislature  reverted  to  the  old  act  of  1678  in 
organizing  the  elective  system;  the  new  act  was  almost  a 
literal  copy  of  the  earlier  law.  The  preamble  was  the  same, 
the  property  qualification  was  unchanged,  and  the  number 
of  delegates  from  each  county  was  restored  to  four,  as  it  had 
been  before  the  proprietor's  ordinance  of  1681" The  pro 
hibition  upon  the  sheriffs  or  under-sheriffs  serving  in  the 
lower  house  was,  however,  removed,  but  that  against  ordi 
nary  keepers  was  retained.  In  agreeing  to  this  measure  with 
its  personal  property  qualifications  the  governor  acted  con 
trary  to  his  instructions,  which  we  have  noticed  directed 
him  to  see  that  freeholders  only  should  vote  for  assembly 
delegates;  but  he  may  have  felt  warranted  in  doing  this 
owing  to  the  twenty  years  of  colonial  practice  preceding  his 
administration.  No  restriction  is  placed  upon  Catholics  by 
the  act,  and  it  is  likely  that  they  were  now  or  shortly  after 
wards  permitted  to  vote,4  although  the  oaths  required  of 
officeholders  would  exclude  them  from  political  positions. 
Later  acts,  indeed,  attempted  to  prevent  the  growth  of 

1  Archives,  Assembly,  1684-92,  359.  Hewitt,  after  being  informed  of 
the  action  of  the  committee,  was  requested  to  give  the  house  a  sermon 
on  the  following  day,  being  Sunday  (364). 

-  Ibid.,  394. 
3  Ibid.,  541. 

*  See  terms  of  act  of  1718,  post.    Mereness,  Maryland,  200,  says  Catho 
lics  were  disfranchised  from  the  beginning  of  the  royal  government, 
but  I  have  found  no  evidence  of  this  exclusion.    There  can  be  no  doubt 
that  they  voted  before  1718. 


72     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

Catholicism  by  imposing  a  fine  of  fifty  pounds  upon  popish 
priests  who  should  baptize  Protestant  children  or  hold  mass 
in  the  province,  and  sentenced  such  priests  to  banishment  if 
they  were  found  teaching  school  in  the  province ; 1  but  there 
was  no  formal  exclusion  of  Catholics  from  the  suffrage  until 
a  quarter  of  a  century  after  the  Protestant  Revolution. 

The  act  of  1692  continued  in  force  about  twelve  years, 
and  in  the  fall  of  1704  it  was  displaced  by  a  new  election 
law.  This  new  act  made  some  slight  changes  in  the  electoral 
machinery,  but  it  retained  the  qualifications  for  voters  as 
they  had  previously  existed ;  again  the  sheriffs  were  directed 
to  admit  to  the  suffrage  "  all  the  freemen  of  your  said  County 
who  have  within  your  said  County  a  freehold  of  fifty  acres 
\  of  land  or  a  visible  estate  of  forty  pounds  sterl.  at  the  least."  2 
An  act  of  I7o83  apparently  did  not  make  any  change  in 
the  suffrage  requirements. 

Governor  Nicholson,  the  second  of  the  royal  governors, 
removed  the  seat  of  government  to  Annapolis,  perhaps  to 
avoid  the  Catholic  influence  at  St.  Mary's;  and  later,  in 
1708,  the  new  capital  was  incorporated  as  a  city,  taking  the 
place  of  St.  Mary's.4  The  charter  of  Annapolis  at  first 
limited  the  suffrage  for  assembly  delegates  to  the  mayor, 
recorder,  aldermen,  and  common  councilmen,  as  had  been 
done  in  St.  Mary's;  but  the  lower  house  of  assembly  ob 
jected  to  this,  and  even  questioned  the  power  of  the  governor 
to  erect  municipal  corporations.  When  the  lower  house  ex 
pelled  the  Annapolis  members  on  these  grounds,  the  governor 

1  Chap.  59  of  1704,  given  by  title  only  in  Bacon's  Laws,  but  in  full 
in  Acts  of  Assembly  Passed  in  the  Province  of  Maryland  From  1692 
to  1715,  London,   1723,  24.     For  the  position  of  the  Catholics  from 
1690  to   1718,  see   Shea,   Catholic  Church  in  Colonial  Days,  344-373. 
An  act  of  1715  (Ch.  XXXVI,  Bacon's  Laws},  for  various  purposes  and 
"  to  prevent  the  Importing  too  great  a  Number  of  Irish  Papists  into 
this  Province,"  laid  a  duty  of  twenty  shillings  on  Irish  servants  coming 
to  Maryland.     See  also  acts  of  1717,  Ch.  10,  and  1732,  Ch.  23. 

2  Chap.  35  of  1704,  given  by  title  only  in  Bacon's  Laws;    but  writ 
given  in  Bishop,  History  of  Elections  in  American  Colonies,  251. 

8  Chap.  5  of  1708. 

*  Browne,  Maryland,  167;   Mereness,  Maryland,  200;   McMahon,  251- 
253- 


The  Suffrage  in  Maryland.  73 

replied  by  a  dissolution  of  the  assembly.  But  the  corporation 
officers  and  inhabitants  petitioned  the  governor  to  change 
the  charter  so  as  to  extend  the  suffrage  to  the  inhabitants 
of  the  city,  and  this  request  was  granted.1  An  act  of  assem 
bly  subsequently  confirmed  and  explained  the  charter  granted 
by  the  governor.2  The  charter  as  amended  gave  the  right 
to  vote  for  the  two  city  delegates  in  assembly  to  freeholders 
owning  a  whole  lot  of  land  with  a  house  thereon,  to  all  in 
habitants  (householders?)  having  a  visible  estate  of  twenty 
pounds,  and  to  those  who  had  served  a  five  years'  appren 
ticeship  to  a  trade  within  the  city,  had  held  their  freedom 
for  three  months,  and  were  actual  housekeepers  and  inhabi 
tants  of  the  city.3  In  the  same  year,  1708,  St.  Mary's  lost 
its  right  to  send  deputies  to  the  assembly.4  Thus  in  Mary 
land,  as  in  many  of  the  other  colonies,  the  borough  suffrage 
was  wider  than  that  granted  to  inhabitants  of  the  country 
districts.  In  this  case  the  freehold  qualification  was  changed 
from  fifty  acres  to  a  town  lot,  the  personal  property  test 
became  twenty  in  place  of  forty  pounds,  and  householders 
who  had  served  an  apprenticeship  in  the  city  could  vote,  no 
matter  how  small  an  amount  of  property  they  held. 

In  1715  the  election  law  was  changed  somewhat  when 
the  whole  body  of  laws  of  the  colony  was  revised.  The  act 
of  June  3,  I7I5,5,  retained  the  fifty  acres  and  forty  pounds 
clauses,  but  required  electors  who  voted  under  the  personal 
property  clause  to  be  residents  of  the  county.  Ordinary 
keepers  were  again  excluded  from  the  assembly,  and  the 
disqualification  was  extended  to  persons  who  by  the  laws  of 
England  would  not  be  qualified  to  sit  in  Parliament.  The 
most  interesting  of  all  the  additions  made  by  this  law  6  to 
the  provisions  of  the  earlier  act  of  1692  is  one  for  the  im 
posing  of  fines  upon  non-voters.  All  freeholders,  freemen, 

1  Mereness,  Maryland,  200-1,  420-22. 

3  Bacon's  Laws,  1708,  Ch.  VII. 
8McMahon,  Maryland,  255. 

4  Ibid. 

6  Chap.  42,  1715.  Acts  of  Assembly  Passed  in  the  Province  of  Mary 
land  from  1692  to  1715,  London,  1723,  121.  Given  by  title  only  in 
Bacon's  Laws. 

6  Not  having  access  to  the  laws  of  1704  and  1708,  I  cannot  be  sure 
that  these  changes  were  first  introduced  in  1715. 


J 


74     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

or  other  persons  qualified  to  vote  were  subject  to  a  fine  of 
one  hundred  pounds  of  tobacco  if  they  neglected  to  attend 
the  elections,  unless  they  gave  a  sufficient  reason  for  absence 
to  the  county  court.  The  features  of  this  law  were  adopted 
in  full  in  1716*  when  a  new  law  directed  that  election  writs 
should  run  in  the  name  of  the  proprietor  instead  of  the 
king's,  and  with  this  slight  change  the  act  of  1715  continued 
without  alteration  until  after  the  Revolution.2 

The  year  1715  saw  the  restoration  of  the  province  to  the 
proprietor  after  his  acceptance  of  Protestantism.3  The  first 
assembly  under  the  proprietor,  in  1716,  passed  "  An  Act 
for  the  better  Security  of  the  Peace  and  Safety  of  his  Lord 
ship's  Government,  and  the  Protestant  Interest  within  this 
province."  4  This  act  required  all  persons  admitted  to  posi 
tions  of  trust  in  the  province  to  take  the  oaths  of  allegiance, 
of  abhorrency,  of  abjuration,  and  the  disavowal  of  the  belief 
in  transubstantiation  in  the  forms  prescribed  in  the  English 
statutes.5  The  Maryland  act  on  this  subject  was  closely 
similar  to  those  passed  in  other  colonies  immediately  follow 
ing  the  Jacobite  uprising  of  1715,  and  hence  was  not  pecu 
liar.  But  two  years  later  a  special  act  directed  at  the  Catho 
lics  was  passed.  This  was  in  the  form  of  a  supplement  to 
the  election  act,  and  again  revived  the  disfranchisement 
policy  which  was  first  adopted  in  the  days  of  the  common 
wealth.  Section  III  of  this  act  provided  for  a  disfranchise 
ment  of  the  Catholics,  which  was  unrepealed  in  1776. 

1  Bacon's  Laws,  1716,  Ch.  XL 

-  With  the  exception  of  the  act  of  1718  concerning  Catholic  electors, 
there  is  no  further  legislation  upon  the  suffrage.  An  act  of  1732 
(Bacon's  Laws,  1732,  Ch.  V)  for  preventing  bribery  in  elections  in 
Annapolis  was  disapproved  by  the  proprietor.  Another  act  of  1769 
(Hanson's  Laivs,  1769,  Ch.  X)  shows  how  long  the  polls  might  remain 
open.  It  provided  that  in  Baltimore  County  the  elections  for  delegates 
should  be  open  for  not  more  than  four  days  in  Baltimore-town,  and 
then  to  be  adjourned  to  Bush-town,  where  they  might  remain  open 
during  four  more  days. 

3  Benedict   Leonard,   Lord   Baltimore,    1714-15,   had,   before   his   suc 
cession  to  the  title,  publicly  renounced  Catholicism. 

4  Bacon's  Laws,  1716,  Ch.  V. 
5 1  George  I,  Ch.  13. 


The  Suffrage  in  Maryland.  75 

"  III.  And  whereas  notwithstanding  all  the  Measures  that  have  been 
hitherto  taken  for  preventing  the  Growth  of  Popery  within  this  Prov 
ince,  it  is  very  obvious,  that  not  only  profest  Papists  still  multiply  and 
increase  in  Number,  but  that  there  are  also  too  great  Numbers  of 
others  that  adhere  to  and  espouse  their  Interest,  in  Opposition  to  the 
Protestant  Establishment:  And  being  under  just  Apprehensions  (from 
what  steps  they  have  already  taken)  that  if  Papists  should  continue  to 
be  allowed  their  vote  in  electing  of  Delegates,  they,  with  their  Ad 
herents,  and  those  under  their  Influence,  will  make  such  a  Party  at  the 
Elections  of  many  of  the  counties  within  this  Province,  as  well  as  the 
City  of  Annapolis,  as  to  determine  the  Choice  in  some,  of  their  great 
Favorites  and  Adherents,  which  if  they  should  accomplish,  how  much 
it  would  tend  to  the  Discouragement  and  Disturbance  of  his  Lord 
ship's  Protestant  Gov't,  is  not  easy  to  imagine  .  .  .  therefore  ...  be 
it  Enacted  .  .  .  That  all  profest  Papists  whatsoever,  be  (and  are 
hereby  Declared)  uncapable  of  giving  their  Vote  in  any  Election  of  a 
Delegate  or  Delegates  within  this  Province,  either  for  Counties,  Cities 
or  Boroughs,  unless  they  first  qualify  themselves  for  so  doing,  by 
taking  the  several  Oaths  appointed  to  be  taken  by  an  act  of  Assembly 
of  this  Province  [1716,  Ch.  V]  ...  and  subscribe  the  Oath  of  Abjura 
tion  and  Declaration  therein  mentioned."  x 

In  order  that  no  Catholic  might  elude  the  terms  of  the  act, 
the  election  judges  were  authorized  to  administer  the  oath 
to  "  any  person  suspected  to  be  a  Papist  or  popishly  inclined" 
whenever  the  judges  saw  fit,  or  when  demanded  by  a  quali 
fied  voter.  A  saving  clause  protected  Quakers  from  suffering 
with  the  Catholics. 

An  act  disfranchising  the  Catholics  at  as  late  a  period  as 
1718  could  have  but  scanty  justification.  There  had  indeed 
been  some  Jacobite  sympathizers  in  Maryland  who  had  com 
mitted  indiscretions,2  but  this  was  not  sufficient  warrant  for 
excluding  all  Catholics  from  voting;.  Neither  were  the  num 
bers  of  the  Catholics  alarming,  for  in  1708  only  2974  Catho 
lics  were  found  by  the  sheriffs  in  a  total  population  exceeding 
4O,ooo.3  The  words  of  the  act  itself  justify  its  provisions 
upon  the  grounds  of  the  recent  growth  of  Catholicism,  and 
the  fear  of  discouragement  and  disturbance  of  Baltimore's 

1  Bacon's  Laws,  1718. 
a  Browne,  Maryland,  208. 

3  Johnson,  Founding  of  Maryland,  etc.,  Md.  Hist.  Soc.  Fund  Pub., 
No.  18,  167. 


76     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

Protestant  government.  But  these  phrases  are  so  vague  that 
they  throw  little  light  upon  the  motives  of  the  assembly.  It 
may  be  that  the  newly  restored  proprietary  family  desired 
to  show  the  strength  of  their  fresh  Protestantism  by  positive 
acts  against  the  Catholics,1  or  that  the  inhabitants  of  the 
province  wished  a  guarantee  against  the  return  of  the  Catho 
lics  to  political  power  through  a  future  conversion  of  Balti 
more  to  Catholicism.  The  members  of  the  sect  which  was 
responsible  for  the  original  settlement  of  the  province  were 
now  disfranchised,  their  religion  was  outlawed,  while  even 
the  proprietor  was  estranged  from  them  and  now  gave  his 
assent  to  laws  for  their  persecution. 

There  is  little  to  be  said  concerning  the  suffrage  in  local 
elections.  By  far  the  greater  number  of  local  officials  were 
appointed,  either  by  the  county  court,  by  the  governor,  by 
acts  of  the  legislature,  or  by  self -perpetuating  boards.  In 
1649  and  1650  acts  were  passed  for  the  election  of  local  tax 
assessors  in  the  several  hundreds  of  certain  counties,2  but 
this  policy  was  not  continued.  In  the  cities  of  St.  Mary's 
and  Annapolis  and  the  towns  the  officers  in  all  but  two  in 
stances  were  either  self-perpetuating  bodies  or  appointed  by 
other  officials.3  Practically  the  only  elective  local  officials 
were  the  officers  of  the  parish, — the  vestrymen  and  the 
church  wardens.  By  the  church  act  of  1692  4  the  county 
courts  were  to  call  to  their  assistance  the  "  most  principall 
freeholders"  of  the  counties  and  arrange  the  bounds  of  par 
ishes.  In  each  parish  the  freeholders  were  to  elect  six  vestry 
men,  but  after  the  first  election  the  vestry  could  fill  vacancies 
in  their  own  number  from  the  freeholders  of  the  parish.  Ten 
years  later  some  changes  were  introduced.  An  act  of 
1701-2  5  provided  that  two  of  the  six  vestrymen  should  be 
elected  annually  by  the  inhabitants  of  the  parish  who  were 

1  McMahon,   279-281.      In   note   3,  p.    281,   McMahon    describes   the 
social  ostracism  which  was  added  to  the  political  disfranchisement  of 
the  Catholics. 

2  Archives,  Assembly,  1637-64,  238,  298. 

3  Mereness,    Maryland,    419,    mentions    two    cases    of    elective    town 
officers. 

*  Archives,  Assembly,  1684-92,  425. 
6  Bacon's  Laws,  1701-2,  Ch.  I. 


The  Suffrage  in  Maryland.  77 

freeholders  within  the  parish  and  contributed  to  the  public 
taxes  and  charges  of  the  parish.  The  act  permitted  the 
electors  to  determine  which  vestrymen  should  be  retired, 
and  provided  for  the  election  of  the  church  wardens  by  the 
vestry  and  freeholders.  A  later  act l  provided  for  a  regular 
rotation  in  the  office  of  vestryman.  Throughout  the  colonial 
period  the  vestry  elections  were  more  limited  than  the  suf 
frage  for  the  assembly;  in  the  former  elections  only  tax- 
paying  freeholders  could  vote,  while  in  the  latter  freeholders 
of  fifty  acres  or  owners  of  forty  pounds  personal  estate  were 
entitled  to  the  franchise,  and  in  Annapolis  the  suffrage  in 
cluded  many,  if  not  all,  householders. 

The  representative  system  and  the  suffrage  in  Maryland 
are  based  in  the  first  instance  upon  the  royal  charter  to  Bal 
timore.  The  terms  of  this  charter  were  ambiguous,  and  in 
practice  in  the  colony  for  almost  forty  years  a  most  liberal 
interpretation  was  given  to  them.  Manhood  suffrage,  with 
out  regard  to  residence,  the  payment  of  taxes,  the  holding 
of  land,  or  any  other  qualifications,  was  exercised  in  the 
early  years  of  the  colony.  Those  that  were  not  free,  i.e., 
slaves  and  servants,  were  the  only  men  excluded.  In  these 
early  years  an  interesting  system  of  proxy  voting  arose,  and 
the  assembly,  somewhat  like  that  of  Rhode  Island  at  almost 
the  same  time,  alternated  from  pure  democracy  to  represen 
tation  of  local  units.  This  early  manhood  suffrage  gave  way 
in  1670  to  the  requirement  that  voters  should  possess  fifty 
acres  of  land  or  an  estate  worth  at  least  forty  pounds  ster 
ling.  This  qualification,  although  based  upon  the  proprietary 
writs  until  1692,  was  later  adopted  by  the  provincial  legisla 
ture,  and  was  the  only  property  qualification  which  the  prov 
ince  of  Maryland  knew  throughout  its  entire  history.  For 
over  one  hundred  years  it  was  the  test  required  of  all  voters 
except  those  in  Annapolis.  The  borough  franchise  was  ex 
tended  to  St.  Mary's  and  Annapolis;  in  the  former  it  was 
limited  to  the  officers  of  the  corporation,  while  in  the  latter 
practically  all  householders  were  privileged  to  vote  for  as 
semblymen.  An  act  of  1715  imposed  a  fine  of  one  hundred 
pounds  of  tobacco  upon  qualified  freemen  who  did  not  take 

1  Bacon's  Laws,  1730,  Ch.  XXIII. 


78     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

part  in  elections,  and  this  provision   remained  unchanged 
until  the  Revolution. 

The  most  marked  feature  of  the  suffrage  in  Maryland  is 
the  attitude  towards  the  sect  which  had  founded  the  colony. 
In  1654  they  were  excluded  from  the  suffrage  and  office; 
again  in  1689  the  revolution  temporarily  disfranchised 
them,  and  after  the  restoration  of  the  province  to  Balti 
more  the  Catholics  were,  in  1718,  permanently  excluded 
from  political  rights.  There  were  practically  no  local  elec 
tions  in  the  colony  other  than  the  vestry  elections,  and  in 
these  the  suffrage  was  more  limited  than  in  the  assembly 
elections,  the  franchise  being  restricted  to  inhabiting  free 
holders  who  paid  parish  taxes. 


CHAPTER    IV. 
THE  SUFFRAGE  IN  NORTH  CAROLINA. 

North  Carolina,  like  her  southern  sister,  passed  through 
the  two  stages  of  proprietary  and  royal  control,  exchanging 
in  1728  the  doubtful  blessings  of  wide  independence  under 
a  weak  government  for  the  exasperating  restraint  of  royal 
instructions  and  peevish  or  incompetent  governors.  The 
history  of  the  colony  varies  from  an  absence  of  political 
control  which  encouraged  personal  license  to  a  measure  of 
arbitrary  actions  and  attempted  coercion  which  fostered 
popular  rebellion.  Like  a  spoilt  child  the  colony  expressed 
its  satisfaction  with  the  weak  rule  of  its  proprietor  parents, 
and,  unlike  South  Carolina,  the  transfer  of  the  government 
from  proprietary  to  royal  control  found  its  main  initiative 
in  England  rather  than  in  the  colony.  When  the  southern 
colony  was  overthrowing  the  proprietor's  officials  and  pro 
testing  against  the  inadequacy  of  their  government,  the  in 
habitants  of  the  northern  country  expressed  their  utter  detes 
tation  of  such  revolutionary  proceedings,  and  wrote  to  the 
proprietors  that  they  were  "  intirely  easy  and  satisfied  under 
their  Lordships  Government."  1 

The  extremes  of  liberty  on  the  one  hand  and  of  arbitrary 
government  on  the  other  are  noticeable  not  only  in  the  quit- 
rent  and  currency  questions  and  other  matters  of  an  eco 
nomic  nature,  but  also  in  the  constitutional  subjects  of  the 
suffrage  and  representation.  After  a  period  of  extensive 
local  control  of  these  questions  under  the  proprietors,  the 
colony  found  itself,  during  the  time  of  the  royal  government, 
at  the  mercy  of  the  king's  prerogative  and  the  royal  veto, 
which  on  one  occasion  were  so  used  that  they  would  have 
thrown  the  whole  colony  into  the  greatest  confusion  had  not 
the  governor  wisely,  but  in  contradiction  to  his  instructions, 

1  Colonial  Records  of  North  Carolina,  II,  375. 

79 


8o     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

withheld  from  the  people  the  knowledge  of  the  royal  veto.1 
Perhaps  in  no  other  colony  was  the  veto  power  used  against 
such  important  and  popular  measures  as  here  in  North  Caro 
lina.  While  in  South  Carolina  there  is  practically  no  break 
in  institutional  development  by  the  transfer  of  the  govern 
ment  to  the  Crown,  in  North  Carolina  the  change  was  accom 
panied  by  many  interferences  with  the  established  laws  and 
customs.  Thus  the  story  of  the  suffrage  in  this  colony  falls 
distinctly  into  two  parts,  in  the  first  of  which  the  proprietors 
place  few  restrictions  upon  their  colonists,  and  in  the  second 
the  elective  and  representative  systems  are  controlled  by  the 
English  government  and  its  governors  in  North  Carolina. 

I.   Under  the  Proprietary  Government,   1663-1728. 

The  basis  for  popular  suffrage  in  North  Carolina,  as  in 
the  other  proprietary  colonies  except  New  York,  is  to  be 
found  in  the  royal  charters  to  the  lords  proprietors,  the  first 
of  which  is  dated  March  24,  1662-3.  It  was,  indeed,  ante 
dated  by  the  charters  to  Raleigh  2  and  Sir  Robert  Heath,3 
but  only  the  latter  possessed  any  provision  for  popular  par 
ticipation  in  the  government,  and  both  were  abrogated  by 
the  Carolina  charters  of  1663  and  1665.  So,  too,  a  few 
land  grants  had  been  made  and  a  few  settlers  from  Virginia 
had  come  into  the  Albemarle  country  before  the  Carolina 
patents  were  passed  under  the  royal  seals,4  but  among  these 
earliest  settlers  we  have  no  record  of  political  organization. 
Thus  the  political  clauses  of  the  charters  to  the  eight  pro 
prietors  may  be  quoted  as  the  basis  of  the  suffrage  in  Caro 
lina.  The  charter  of  1663  5  gave  to  the  proprietors  full  and 
absolute  power 

"to  ordaine,  make,  enact,  and  under  their  seals  to  publish  any  laws 
whatsoever,  either  appertaining  to  the  publick  state  of  the  said  province, 
or  to  the  private  utility  of  particular  persons,  according  to  their  best 

1  See  post,  for  the  repeal  of  the  representation  and  suffrage  acts  in 
1754,  and  Governor  Dobbs'  withholding  this  knowledge  for  a  time. 
a  Poore,  Charters  and  Constitutions,  II,  1379-1382. 
&N.  C.  Col  Rec.,1,  5-13- 
'Ibid.,  14-17. 
5  Ibid.,  20-33;    Poore,  Charters  and  Constitutions,  II,  1382-1390. 


The  Suffrage  in  North  Carolina.  81 

discretion,  of  and  with  the  advice,  assent  and  approbation  of  the  free 
men  of  the  said  province,  or  of  the  greater  part  of  them,  or  of  their 
delegates  or  deputies  whom  for  enacting  of  the  said  laws,  when  and  as 
often  as  need  shall  require,  we  will  that  the  said  .  .  .  [eight  proprie 
tors]  and  their  heirs  shall  from  time  to  Time  assemble  in  such  manner 
and  form  as  to  them  shall  seem  best,  and  the  same  laws  duly  to 
execute.  ..." 

The  second  charter  to  the  eight  proprietors,  dated  June  30, 
J665,1  gave  the  patentees  the  right  to  erect  and  constitute 
counties,  baronies,  and  colonies  within  their  province,  having 
distinct  jurisdiction  and  privileges,  and  in  each  one  to  make 
and  enact  laws  in  a  manner  similar  to  that  established  by  the 
first  charter.  Both  charters  used  the  word  freeman  in  first 
describing  the  voters,  but  both  referred  subsequently  to  as 
semblies  of  the  freeholders,  and  thus  here,  as  in  Maryland, 
led  to  a  confusion  in  the  political  practice  under  the  charters. 
We  shall  see  the  later  interpretation  put  upon  the  word. 

The  proprietors  proceeded  almost  at  once  to  promise  to 
intending  settlers  the  various  privileges  in  popular  govern 
ment  which  the  charter  had  directed  should  be  granted  to 
colonists.  In  August,  1663,  some  New  Englanders  proposed 
settling  in  Carolina,  and  asked  that  they  be  given  the  New 
England  privilege  of  levying  taxes  "  upon  themselves  by 
themselves."  2  In  the  same  month  the  proprietors  issued 
proposals  to  settlers,3  in  which  they  promised  the  under 
takers  in  England  that  they  might  name  thirteen  persons 
from  whom  the  proprietors  should  select  one  for  governor 
of  the  colony  and  six  for  his  council,  and  that  a  similar  nomi 
nation  and  selection  should  be  made  every  three  years  by 
the  freeholders  of  the  colony  or  their  representatives.  To 
this  liberal  method  of  choosing  the  higher  officials  the  pro 
prietors  joined  a  promise  of  a  popular  legislative  body  elected 
by  the  freeholders.4 

"  We  shall,  as  far  as  our  charter  permits  us,  empower  the  major  part 
of  the  freeholders,  or  their  deputies  or  assembly-men,  to  be  by  them 

1  N.  C.  Col.  Rec.,  I,  102-114;    Poore,  Charters  and  Constitutions,  II, 

I390-I397. 

2  Ibid.,  38. 

a  August  25,  1663 ;   ibid.,  43~& 
4  N.  C.  Col.  Rec.,  I,  45- 

6 


82     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

chosen  out  of  themselves,  viz. :  two  out  of  every  tribe,  division,  or 
parish,  in  such  manner  as  shall  be  agreed  on,  to  make  their  own  laws, 
by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Governor  and  council ;" 

provided  that  such  laws  be  not  repugnant  to  the  laws  of 
England,  and  that  within  one  year  they  be  presented  to  the 
proprietors  for  their  ratification.  Religious  liberty  was  also 
promised  to  the  settlers,  and  each  man  was  given  the  privi 
lege  of  taking  up  one  hundred  acres  of  land  for  himself,  fifty 
acres  for  each  fully  armed  man-servant,  and  thirty  acres  for 
each  woman-servant  that  he  brought  to  the  colony. 

These  proposals  were  sent  to  certain  intending  settlers 
who  had  suggested  that  they  be  erected  into  a  corporation  1 
with  the  privilege  of  choosing  a  mayor  and  other  officers. 
The  proprietors  speak  in  favor  of  their  more  democratic  way 
of  government  set  down  in  the  proposals,  which,  they  say, 
"  we  hold  to  be  better  for  the  people  in  Generall  then  the 
Corporation  way  that  you  demand,  in  which  the  members 
choasen  to  manage  the  Government  doe  continew  for  there 
lives,  and  are  not  to  be  removed  but  by  there  owne  fellowes 
or  the  Major  parte  of  them,  whoe  may  be  apter  to  wincke  at 
the  misdemeanors  of  there  fellow  Governors  then  the  people 
that  are  to  be  governed  by  them  will."  2  According  to  the 
plan  of  the  proposals,  the  lords  continue,  it  will  be  in  the 
power  of  the  people  every  three  years  "  to  leave  out  such  as 
have  misbehaved  themselves"  in  making  their  nominations 
for  new  officers  to  the  proprietors.  The  same  readiness  to 
grant  popular  government  is  to  be  seen  in  the  paper  sent 
by  the  proprietors  in  England  to  the  only  one  of  their  num 
ber  resident  in  America,  in  which  they  empower  proprietor 
Sir  William  Berkeley,  governor  of  Virginia,  to  appoint  one 
or  two  governors  of  Carolina  and  a  council  of  six  persons 
for  each  governor.3  These  governors  and  councillors,  "  by 
and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  freeholders  or  free 
men  or  the  Major  parte  of  them,  there  deputyes  or  delli- 
gates,"  were  empowered  to  make  good  and  wholesome  laws 
for  the  better  government  of  the  colony  or  colonies.  Thus, 

1 N.  C.  Col  Rec.  I,  42. 

2  Ibid.,  58. 

3  Ibid.,  48-50. 


The  Suffrage  in  North  Carolina.  83 

in  the  earliest  history  of  their  province,  the  lords  proprietors 
show  no  reluctance  to  fulfil  the  terms  of  their  charter  re 
quiring  a  representative  legislature. 

A  considerably  more  pretentious  scheme  of  government 
was  outlined  in  January,  1664-5,  as  Pal"t  of  an  agreement 
between  the  Carolina  proprietors  and  some  intending  settlers 
in  England,  Barbadoes,  and  New  England,  headed  by  Major 
William  Yeamans.1  With  the  many  interesting  details  of 
these  "  Concessions  and  Agreement"  we  are  not  here  con 
cerned,  although  it  may  be  noted  that  they  are  in  many 
particulars  exactly  the  same  as  the  concessions  granted  by 
Berkeley  and  Carteret,  two  of  the  Carolina  proprietors,  to 
settlers  in  their  other  province  of  New  Jersey.2  The  new 
agreement  again  looked  to  the  establishment  of  several  dis 
tinct  governments,  or  "  countyes,"  as  they  are  called  in  the 
document,  and  provided  for  a  representative  assembly  in 
each,  elected  by  "  the  inhabitants  being  freemen  or  chief 
agents  to  others  of  ye  countyes"  aforesaid.3  Much  more 
liberal  grants  of  land  were  made  by  this  agreement  of  1665 
than  by  the  earlier  one  of  1663, to  the  end  "  that  the  planting 
of  the  Countyes  aforesd  may  bee  the  more  speedily  pro 
moted."  4 

Throughout  all  this  early  period  the  terms  freeman  and 
freeholder  are  used  interchangeably,  as  has  been  noted  in 
some  of  the  other  colonies.  The  royal  charter  had  used  the 
words  synonymously,  and  the  proprietors  had  merely  re 
tained  the  ambiguity  of  the  charter  when  they  directed  in 
the  concessions  that  elections  should  be  by  the  freemen  and, 
in  another  place  in  the  same  document,  by  the  freeholders. 
There  seems  no  question  that  the  early  suffrage  was  usually 
limited  to  freeholders,  but  later  the  identity  of  the  two  classes 
was  lost,  and  in  the  period  1715-1734  the  class  of  freemen, 
as  in  Maryland  and  South  Carolina  at  an  earlier  date,  was 
held  to  be  wider  than  the  class  of  freeholders.5 

Another    important    feature    of    this    early    constitution- 

1 N.  C.  Col.  Rec.,  I,  75-92. 

8  See  New  Jersey  Colonial  Archives,  I,  28-43. 

3  N.  C.  Col.  Rec.,  I,  81. 

4  Ibid.,  86. 

'  See  post,  act  of  1734. 


84     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

making  is  seen  in  the  attempt  of  the  proprietors  to  divide 
their  province  into  distinct  colonies.  This  policy  was 
strengthened  by  the  difficulties  of  communication  between 
the  northern  and  southern  parts  of  the  province,  and  by  the 
commercial  association  of  the  north  with  Virginia  and  the 
economic  independence  of  the  south.  These  facts  made  the 
ultimate  division  of  the  province  a  probability,  but  the  pro 
prietors  looked  forward  to  several,  perhaps  eight,  distinct 
principalities  within  their  grant.  This  is  seen  in  their  first 
instructions  to  Governor  Berkeley;  it  is  frequently  men 
tioned  in  their  concessions  of  1665;  distinct  governments 
were  formally  permitted  by  the  second  royal  charter  of  1665, 
and  the  early  policy  of  the  proprietors  continually  encour 
aged  the  settlement  of  distinct  groups  of  emigrants  under 
independent  governments.1  It  was  not  the  fault  of  the  pro 
prietors  that  their  province  did  not  contain  several  rather 
than  only  two  governments;  had  the  various  proposed  or 
attempted  settlements  succeeded,  there  would  have  been  more 
than  two  Carolinas.  As  it  was,  the  policy  of  the  proprietors 
accorded  well  with  the  geographical  and  economic  separation 
of  the  two  successful  colonies,  and  made  a  separation  that 
was  almost  inevitable  come  without  acrimony  on  either  side.2 
Political  organization  in  the  Albemarle  lands,  already 
populated  by  settlers  from  Virginia,  begins  shortly  after  the 
granting  of  the  royal  charter.  A  general  assembly,  in  a 
letter  written  in  June,  i665,3  is  referred  to  as  having  sent 
a  petition  to  the  proprietors.  William  Drummond,  the  first 
governor  of  the  county,  promises  the  commissioners  of  Mary 
land  and  Virginia  that  he  will  call  a  meeting  of  his  council 
and  "  committee"  to  consider  the  cessation  of  tobacco-plant 
ing;4  and  some  time  between  July  and  October,  1666,  this 
"  committee,"  or  assembly,  met  and  passed  a  law  restricting 


1 N.  C.  Col.  Rec,,  I,  48-50;  75-92  passim;  102-114  passim;  and 
Prefatory  Notes,  xiv-xv;  III,  574.  Compare  the  division  of  New  Jer 
sey  into  two  sections. 

2  Note  the  excitement  attendant  upon  the  separation  of  the  Delaware 
Counties  from  the  province  of  Pennsylvania. 

*Ibid.}  101. 

4  Ibid.,  142. 


The  Suffrage  in  North  Carolina.  85 

the  planting  of  tobacco.1  In  the  same  year  in  another  colony 
to  the  southward,  on  the  Cape  Fear  River,  an  assembly  of 
fourteen  persons  sent  a  formal  and  elaborate  petition  to  the 
proprietors.2  But  of  these  early  assemblies  in  Albemarle 
and  Clarendon  Counties  we  know  little.  Unfortunately,  we 
do  not  possess  for  North  Carolina  those  personal  details  of 
politics  and  elections  which  are  so  interesting  in  the  early 
history  of  South  Carolina.  Only  by  obscure  references  do 
we  know  that  these  assemblies  have  met;  they  have  left  no 
formal  record  either  of  their  elections  or  of  their  acts  as 
representative  bodies. 

When  the  proprietors  commissioned  a  new  governor  for 
Albemarle  County  in  October,  1667,  they  appear  to  have 
been  contented  with  the  outline  of  government  and  land 
policy  given  in  their  concessions  two  years  earlier,  for  the 
principal  features  of  the  concessions  are  repeated  in  the  in 
structions  to  the  new  governor,  Samuel  Stephens.3  But 
this  comparatively  simple  form  of  government  was  soon 
displaced,  at  least  in  the  minds  of  the  proprietors,  by  the 
aristocratic  and  elaborate  features  of  the  Fundamental  Con 
stitutions.  Setting  aside  the  details  of  palatines,  landgraves, 
and  cassiques,  of  seigniories,  baronies,  and  colonies,  and  of 
courts  baron  and  leet,  we  notice  in  the  Constitutions  for  the 
first  time  a  clear  definition  of  the  suffrage  and  office-holding 
qualifications.  The  "  First  Set"  of  the  Constitutions,  con 
taining  one  hundred  and  eleven  sections,  dated  July  21,  1669, 
has  been  published  only  recently.4  It  begins  with  the  well- 
known  statement  that  the  Constitutions  are  established  in 
order  that  "  ye  governmt,  of  this  province  may  be  made  most 
agreable  unto  ye  monarchy  under  wch.  we  live,  &  of  wch. 
this  province  is  a  part,  &  yt  we  may  avoid  erecting  a  numer 
ous  democracy."  Thus  the  provisions  of  the  charters  re 
quiring  a  popular  representative  body  were  to  be  carefully 

1  N.  C.  Col.  Rec.,  I,  152. 

2  Ibid.,  145-149.     The  Cape  Fear  settlement  was  doomed  to  failure. 
See  N.  C.  Col.  Rec.,  I,  Prefatory  Notes,  x;    149-151,  I57~I59,  177-208; 
McCrady,  History  of  South  Carolina  under  the  Proprietary  Govern 
ment,  79-93. 

*  Ibid.,  165-175. 

4  Collections  of  South  Carolina  Historical  Society,  V, 


86     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

balanced  by  the  establishment  of  hereditary  landed  aris 
tocracy. 

The  Constitutions  contained,  however,  a  number  of 
sections  dealing  with  elections.  A  parliament  was  to  be 
formed  out  of  the  nobility  and  representatives  of  the  free 
holders,  elected  biennially,  and  the  qualifications  of  members 
and  electors  were  specified : 

"  There  shall  be  a  Parliamt  consisting  of  ye  proprietors  or  their 
deputyes  ye  landgraves  and  cassiques  &  one  freeholder  out  of  every 
presinct  to  be  chosen  by  ye  freeholders  of  ye  sd.  presinct  respectively. 
They  shall  sit  alltogether  in  one  roome,  &  have  every  member  one 
vote." 

"  No  man  shall  be  chosen  a  member  of  Parliamt.  who  hath  lesse  then 
five  hundred  acres  of  freehold  within  ye  presinct  for  wch.  he  is  chosen, 
!  nor  shall  any  have  a  vote  in  choosing  ye  sd.  member,  yt  hath  lesse  yn 
i  fifty  acres  of  freehold  within  the  said  presinct."  * 

Other  officers  also  elected  by  the  freeholders  were  registers, 
constables  and  their  assistants,  and  the  common  councilmen 
of  incorporated  towns.  The  possession  of  fifty  acres  did  not 
have  the  same  restrictive  force  in  preventing  a  "  numerous 
democracy"  which  a  similar  qualification  would  have  pos 
sessed  in  England  with  its  large  tenant  population.  Any 
free  man,  in  accordance  with  the  concessions  of  the  pro 
prietors,  could  easily  obtain  more  than  sufficient  to  qualify 
him  for  the  suffrage.  There  were  three  things  required  of 
the  intending  occupant  of  land:  (i)  that  he  acknowledge 
the  existence  of  a  God  and  that  God  is  publicly  and  solemnly 
to  be  worshipped;  (2)  that  he  promise  allegiance  to  the 
king,  faithfulness  to  the  proprietors,  and  obedience  to  the 
Fundamental  Constitutions;  (3)  that  after  1689  he  pay  a 
quit-rent  of  one  penny  an  acre  for  all  the  land  he  occupied.2 
In  the  "  Second  Set"  of  constitutions,  of  March  i,  1669- 
70,  the  suffrage  and  representative  features  were  the  same  as 
those  in  the  first  set.3  A  still  later  frame  called  the  "  Fifth 

1  Collections  of  South  Carolina  Historical  Society,  V,  no. 

2  Ibid.,  115-116;    later  changed  to  a  half-penny  an  acre. 

*  N.  C.  Col.  Rec.,  I,  187-205;  Poore,  Charters  and  Constitutions,  II, 
1397-1408 ;  Statutes  at  Large  of  South  Carolina,  I,  43-56. 


The  Suffrage  in  North  Carolina.  87 

Set,"  in  1698  divided  the  parliament  into  distinct  houses  for 
the  nobility  and  the  representatives  of  the  freeholders  re 
spectively,  and  changed  somewhat  the  qualifications  of 
voters.1  The  provisions  were  as  follows : 

"6.  There  shall  be  a  Parliam*  consisting  of  the  Proprietors  or  their 
Deputyes  by  themselves  the  Landgraves  &  Cassiques  in  ye  Upper  House, 
And  the  Freeholders  out  of  every  County  to  be  chosen  by  ye  freehold 
ers  of  ye  said  Countyes  respectively  together  with  ye  Citizens  and  Bur 
gesses  to  be  Elected  by  ye  Cittys  &  Borroughs  (which  shall  be  here 
after  Created),  in  ye  lower  House." 

"  9.  Noe  person  shall  be  capable  of  giving  his  voyce  for  the  Election 
of  a  Member  to  serve  in  Parliament  that  is  not  actually  possest  of 
acres  of  land  and  is  a  Householder,  &  has  a  family  and  whose  reall  & 
personall  Estates  does  not  amount  to  pounds." 

A  qualification  such  as  the  latter,  it  will  be  seen,  would  be 
equivalent  to  a  decided  limitation  upon  voting.  Under  it  \ 
no  bachelors  could  vote  unless  they  were  heads  of  families, 
and  no  freeholder  unless  his  freehold  was  of  a  stated  size 
and  his  whole  estate  of  a  certain  value.  In  New  Nether 
lands  it  was  the  custom  for  the  governor  to  call  together  the 
heads  of  families,  and  in  some  cases  in  the  Middle  or  New 
England  Colonies  the  town  suffrage  was  practically  limited 
to  such;  but  the  usual  borough  requirement  that  the  voter 
be  an  inhabitant  or  householder  was  not  a  direct  exclusion 
of  unmarried  men.  The  proposition  of  the  Carolina  pro 
prietors  is  an  unusual  one  in  its  formal  limitation  of  the 
suffrage  for  the  colonial  assembly  to  men  who  were  heads  of 
families. 

Considerable  uncertainty  exists  as  to  the  exact  legal 
position  of  the  Fundamental  Constitutions  in  North  Caro 
lina.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  they  never  were  in  force 
in  South  Carolina,  but  proof  is  not  lacking  that  they  were 
established  in  the  northern  colony.  In  a  most  interest 
ing  paper  delivered  by  the  assembly  to  Governor  Burrington 
in  1732,  it  is  stated  that  "  in  the  Province  of  North  Carolina 
(tho'  not  in  South)  the  People  received"  the  constitutions 
of  1669,2  and  it  is  intimated  that  the  set  of  1698  was  also 

*N.  C.  Col.  Rec.,  II,  Appendix,  853-854. 
*Ibid.,  Ill,  452. 


88     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

accepted.1  It  is  highly  probable  that  certain  features  of  the 
constitutions,  particularly  those  relating  to  popular  elections 
and  concerning  land  matters,  were  accepted  by  the  settlers, 
while  the  more  elaborate  provisions  for  a  landed  nobility,  a 
house  of  lords,  and  feudal  serfdom  were  simply  ignored. 
We  have,  indeed,  an  explicit  statement  of  the  assembly  in  a 
law  of  1699  that  the  sections  relating  to  biennial  parliaments 
were  received  by  the  community,2  and  in  1725  the  governor 
writes  that  an  assembly  must  "  be  chosen  and  meet  according 
to  the  Fundamental  Constitutions  of  Carolina  as  you  well 
know."  3  Thus  the  truth  about  these  much  disputed  con 
stitutions  seems  to  be  that  they  were  in  toto  formally  ac 
cepted  by  the  people  of  North  Carolina,  but  that  in  reality 
only  the  sections  which  fitted  the  economic  and  political 
needs  of  the  settlement  were  put  into  execution.4  In  North 
Carolina  the  important  question  respecting  the  constitutions 
is  not  whether  they  were  adopted  by  the  people  or  not,  but 
the  extent  to  which  their  clauses  were  actually  enforced.  It 
would  be  an  interesting  task  to  determine,  by  a  careful  in 
spection  of  the  later  laws,  how  far  the  colonial  constitution 
and  legislation  were  influenced  by  the  proprietors'  constitu 
tions.  It  seems  to  the  writer  that  the  result  would  show  a 
surprisingly  large  portion  of  the  constitutions  incorporated 
into  the  provincial  customs  and  laws.5 

During  a  period  of  fifty  years  following  the  first  assembly 
of  1665  we  have  no  record  of  the  actual  restrictions  imposed 
upon  the  suffrage;  and  one  cannot  be  sure  that  the  simple 
freehold  qualification  of  the  constitutions  of  1669  or  the 
more  elaborate  provisions  of  the  set  of  1698  were  ever  en 
forced.  It  has  been  found  impossible  to  determine  whether 
these  suffrage  clauses  of  the  constitution  were  among  the 
chosen  subjects  or  among  those  ignored  by  the  assembly 
and  people.  From  Governor  Carteret's  commission  in  1670 
down  to  that  of  Governor  Johnson  in  1702,  the  proprietors 

1 N.  C.  Col  Rec.,  Ill,  453. 
2 Ibid.;  also  III,  574. 
8  Ibid.,  526. 

4  Ibid.,  I,  Prefatory  Notes,  xvii. 

6  See  Governor  Burrington's  remarks  on  all  the  laws  of  1715,  N.  C. 
Col.  Rec.,  Ill,  180-189. 


The  Suffrage  in  North  Carolina.  89 

seem  bent  on  establishing  their  constitutions;  but  they  admit 
the  lack  of  the  requisite  nobility,  and  they  can  only  urge 
the  governors  "  to  come  as  nigh"  as  possible  to  the  frame,  or 
to  select  its  "  most  expedient"  parts  for  execution.1  Unfor 
tunately,  no  law  respecting  the  suffrage  previous  to  1715 
has  been  found,  so  that  we  cannot  tell  how  near  the  colonial 
legislation  approached  to  the  terms  of  the  constitutions. 

In  reality  the  suffrage  during  these  fifty  years  must  have 
been  upon  a  very  precarious  basis.  In  this  period  five  or  six 
governors  or  presidents  acting  under  proprietary  authority 
were  driven  out  of  the  country  by  force ; 2  two  formidable 
insurrections  took  place ;  and  for  years  at  a  time  it  could  be 
said  that  no  lawful  government  existed  in  the  colony.  Under 
such  circumstances  it  is  in  vain  to  look  for  regular  election 
methods.  It  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  agitators  like  Cul- 
pepper  or  Gary  looked  carefully  to  see  that  their  adherents 
possessed  exactly  the  number  of  acres  requisite  to  admit 
them  to  the  franchise;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  the  records 
show  that  the  established  authorities  did  not  scruple  to  ignore 
formal  qualifications  for  the  suffrage.  For  instance,  in  1677 
we  find  President  Miller  charged  with  "  making  strange 
limitations  for  ye  choyce  of  ye  ParliamV  3  and  denying  a 
"  free  election  of  an  assembly."  4  And  his  opponents,  meet 
ing  in  a  riotous  manner,  cursed  king,  proprietors,  and  land 
graves,  and  proceeded  to  elect  an  assembly  out  of  their 
number,  making  their  drummer  one  of  its  members.5 

From  1 68 1  to  1708  the  colony  had  comparative  quiet. 
In  the  former  year  the  proprietors  attempted  to  establish  a 
general  legislature  for  the  entire  province  of  Carolina,6  made 
up  of  representatives  from  both  the  northern  and  southern 
counties;  but  the  governor  exercised  the  discretion  vested 


1  See  Governor  Carteret's  commission,  N.  C.  Col.  Rec.,  I,  181-183 ; 
President  Harvey's  instructions,  ibid.,  235-239;  Governor  Wilkinson's, 
333-338;  Governor  Archdale's,  389-390;  Governor  Johnson's,  554-555- 

*  N.  C.  Col.  Rec.,  II,  Prefatory  Notes,  x-xi. 
•Ibid.,  1,287. 

*  Carroll,  Historical  Collections  of  South  Carolina,  II,  336. 
6  N.  C.  Col.  Rec.,  I,  272,  297,  299,  etc. 

6  Instructions  to  Governor  Ludwell,  ibid.,  373~38o. 


QO     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

in  him  1  to  continue  the  legislative  separation  of  the  two 
sections  of  the  province.  A  court  record  for  December  9, 
1696,  shows  that  Governor  Archdale  used  no  more  exact 
word  than  "  inhabitants"  when  he  described  the  electors  in 
the  county  of  Bath.2  Shortly  after  this,  laws  for  biennial 
assemblies  were  passed  by  the  assembly,3  but  I  have  found 
no  reference  to  any  suffrage  provisions  they  may  have  con 
tained.4  A  later  governor  said  the  terms  of  the  election  law 
of  1715  were  drawn  from  earlier  proprietary  constitutions,5 
but  Burrington's  word  is  too  scanty  evidence  to  warrant 
our  projecting  the  qualifications  of  1715  back  to  1697.  On 
the  other  hand,  an  election  writ  issued  by  Governor  Daniel 
about  1703  grants  the  suffrage  to  all  the  freeholders  of  the 
precinct,6  but  this,  too,  cannot  be  taken  as  conclusive  evi 
dence  of  the  restriction  of  the  suffrage  to  landholders. 

1  Additional  Instructions,  N.  C.  Col.  Rec.,  I,  380-381. 

2  Ibid.,  472. 

"  Ordered  that  writs  be  issued  out  to  the  seyeral  precincts 
of  the  County  of  Albemarle,  for  electing  five  Burgesses  for 
each  Precinct  to  meet  at  the  House  of  Thomas  Nicolo,  the 
eighteenth  Day  of  January  next." 

"  Ordered  that  a  writt  be  issued  out  to  the  Inhabitants  of  the 
County  of  Bath  to  make  choice  of  two  Burgesses  to  sit  in  the 
Grand  Assembly  to  be  holden  at  the  House  of  Thomas  Nicolo 
the  eighteenth  Day  of  January  next." 

3  Acts  of  1697  and  1699.     These  acts  are  only  indirectly  referred  to 
at  a  much  later  date  (N.  C.  Col.  Rec.,  Ill,  453). 

4  Acts  with  similar  titles  were  passed  in  South  Carolina  in  the  years 
1692  and  1696-7,  of  whose  provisions  we  have  some  idea.     See  post. 

5  A/".  C.  Col.  Rec.,  Ill,  180. 

6  North  Carolina  Historical  and  Genealogical  Register,  III,  136. 

"  By  the  Honble  Landgrave  Robt  Daniell  Esqr  Lieutent  Gen- 
erall  Vice  Admirall  &  Deputy  Governor  and  the  rest  of  the 
Lords  Proprietors  Deputies. 

"  Whereas  Caleb  Bundy  Jeremiah  Symonds  Augustine  Scar 
borough  &  John  Hawkins  Chosen  Burgesses  for  this  present 
Assembly  for  yor  Precinct  of  Pascotank  have  refused  to  take 
the  Oaths  appointed  by  Law  These  are  in  the  Name  of  his 
Excellency  the  Palatine  &  the  rest  of  the  true  &  absolute 
Lords  &  Proprietors  to  will  &  require  you  to  Sumons  all  the 
Freeholders  in  yor  precinct  to  meet  at  the  usuall  place  for 


The  Suffrage  in  North  Carolina.  91 

The  civil  dissensions  aroused  by  Colonel  Gary  in  1708, 
and  lasting  almost  five  years,  brought  the  inevitable  inter 
ference  in  elections.  Again  we  are  told  that  "  boys  and 
otherwise  unqualified"  persons  voted  in  elections,  that  the 
candidates  receiving  a  majority  of  votes  were  not  recog 
nized,1  and  that  the  rabble  was  treated  to  "  good  liquor, 
rum,  and  brandy."2  In  January,  1716-17,  a  missionary, 
himself  not  in  the  best  repute,3  wrote  to  England  that  "  the 
fundamental  constitutions  were  intended  to  be  unalterable, 
but  now  as  little  regarded  as  Magna  Charta  in  England,  this 
Lawless  people  will  allow  of  no  power  or  authority  in  either 
Church  or  State  save  what  is  derived  from  them.  A  pro 
prietor  were  he  here  would  be  looked  on  no  better  than  a 
ballad  singer."  4 

A  few  years  after  the  Cary  Rebellion  had  been  suppressed 
the  assembly  provided  for  a  general  revisal  of  the  laws  of 
the  province,  and  in  this  manuscript  revision  of  1715  is  to 
be  found  the  earliest  extant  election  law.  It  is  entitled  "  An 
Act  relating  to  the  Bienniall  and  Other  Assemblies  and  Reg 
ulating  Elections  and  Members."  5  The  preamble  states  that 
the  proprietors  have  considered  the  customs  of  England,  and 
have  sought  to  apply  to  their  province  those  immunities 
which  will  encourage  its  settlement,  among  which  "  the  fre 
quent  sitting  of  Assemblies  is  a  principal  safeguard  of  their 
peoples  Priviledges."  The  act  proceeds  to  empower  "  the 
freemen  of  the  respective  precincts"  of  the  County  of  Albe- 


Electing  Burgesses  on  or  before  the  -    -  day  of  next 

Ensuing  then  and  there  to  Elect  &  Chuse  four  prudent  &  Sub- 
stantiall  men  Freeholders  of  yor  precinct  to  be  Burgessses  in 
theire  Roome  for  yor  precinct  to  meet  at  the  House  of  Capt. 
John  Hecklefield  in  Little  River  -  -  next  ensuing  to 

advise  &  assent  to  such  matters  as  for  the  weal  Publick  shall 
be  most  necessary.  ..." 

1  N.  C.  Col.  Rec.,  I,  696. 

2  Ibid.,  915.     For  short  sketch  of  these  troubles,  see  S.  B.  Weeks, 
Religious  Development  in  the  Province  of  North  Carolina,  Johns  Hop 
kins  Univ.  Stud.,  X,  290-302. 

8  He  was  indicted  for  drunkenness,  N.  C.  Col.  Rcc.,  II,  401. 

'Ibid.,  271. 

5  Ibid.,  213-216. 


92     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

marie  to  meet  every  two  years  and  elect  five  freeholders  to 
represent  each  precinct,  and  the  "  inhabitants  and  freemen" 
of  each  precinct  in  any  other  county  to  choose  two  repre 
sentatives.  The  act  then  limits  the  words  "  freemen  and 
inhabitants"  by  imposing  an  age,  a  racial,  and  a  tax-paying 
qualification,  in  the  following  words : 

"  And  it  is  hereby  further  enacted  by  the  Authority  aforesaid  that  no 
person  whatsoever  Inhabitant  of  this  Government  born  out  of  the 
Allegiance  of  his  Majesty  and  not  made  free  no  Negro  Mulatto  or 
Indians  shall  be  capable  of  voting  for  Members  of  Assembly  and  that 
no  other  person  or  persons  shall  be  allowed  to  vote  for  members  of 
Assembly  in  the  Government  unless  he  be  of  the  Age  of  one  and 
Twenty  years  and  has  been  one  full  year  resident  in  the  Government 
and  has  paid  one  years  Levy  proceeding  the  election." 

Further  provisions  required  each  voter  to  bring  a  ballot 
called  a  "  List,"  containing  the  names  of  those  he  voted  for, 
and  to  subscribe  his  own  name,  or  cause  it  to  be  done  before 
the  election  marshal,  and  the  latter  officer  was  empowered  to 
administer  an  oath  respecting  their  qualifications  to  all  per 
sons  who,  by  the  marshal  or  any  candidate,  were  thought  to 
be  unqualified.  The  method  of  returning  the  results  of  the 
election  was  fixed;  penalties  were  to  be  imposed  upon  offi 
cers  neglecting  their  duty  or  members  refusing  to  serve ;  and 
the  oaths  of  allegiance,  supremacy,  abjuration,  and  any 
others  taken  by  members  of  the  English  Parliament,  were 
to  be  administered  to  all  members.  A  quorum  was  to  consist 
of  not  "  less  than  one  full  half  of  the  House." 

The  act  of  1715  certainly  meant  to  distinguish  between 
freemen  and  freeholders;  and  while  the  royal  charter  had 
apparently  used  the  two  words  synonymously,  the  legislature 
under  the  term  "  freemen"  now  admitted  all  those  tax-payers 
to  vote  who  were  white  male  subjects  of  Great  Britain  and 
resident  at  least  one  year  in  the  province.  And  the  tax-payer 
in  North  Carolina  need  not  be  either  a  land-holder  or  a  slave 
owner,  as  was  the  case  in  South  Carolina.  While  in  the 
latter  colony  land  and  slaves  were  almost  the  sole  objects  of 
taxation,  in  North  Carolina  the  poll-tax  was  practically  the 
only  form  of  taxation.  Thus  evefy~white  male  over  sixteen 
years  was  tithable,  and  consequently,  if  he  had  paid  his  taxes 


The  Suffrage  in  North  Carolina.  93 

and  was  of  age,  was  eligible  to  vote.1  In  this  respect  the 
laws  of  North  Carolina  were  more  liberal  than  those  of  any 
other  colony  in  1715. 

Since  1670  the  only  unit  of  representation  in  the  province 
had  been  the  precinct,  but  in  1715  provision  was  made  for 
the  representation  of  towns,  a  feature  which  was  to  be  de 
veloped  until  North  Carolina  had  a  larger  number  of  towns 
represented  in  her  assembly  than  any  other  colony  outside 
of  New  England.  Chapter  LIT  of  the  laws  of  1715  gave 
to  the  town  of  Bath  the  right  to  elect  a  representative  when 
it  should  have  a  population  of  sixty  or  more  families,2  and 
also  extended  the  same  privilege  to  any  other  town  when  it 
should  attain  the  required  population.3  In  time  several 
towns  obtained  the  right  to  send  representatives,  and  it  was 
thought  best  to  define  the  franchise  in  these  towns  by  formal 
act  of  the  legislature.  Accordingly,  in  1723,  a  supplement  4 
was  passed  to  the  election  law  of  1715.  This  act  provided 
that  the  suffrage  franchise  in  any  town  in  the  government 
was  to  be  limited,  first,  to  freeholders  of  "  saved"  lots  in  the 
who  kept  constantly  in  repair  a  house  or  houses ;  and 
secondly,  to  tenants  of  any  houses  in  the  towns  who  had  paid 
_poll-tax  for  the  preceding  year;  but  freeholders  were  ex 
pressly  forbidden  to  vote  in  virtue  of  any  house  tenanted  by 
a  tax-paying  voter.  The  burgess  from  such  a  town  must  be 
an  owner  of  a  "  saved"  lot  therein,  which  he  had  held  for 
eighteen  months  preceding  and  on  which  he  maintained  a 
habitable  house.  By  a  "  saved"  lot  was  meant  one  for  which 
the  owner  had  performed  all  the  duties  necessary  for  him 
to  preserve  its  ownership ;  duties  which  usually  included  the 
erecting  of  a  house  of  a  prescribed  size  and  height,  with 

1 N.  C.  Col.  Rec.,  II,  Appendix,  889.  By  this  act  of  1715,  taxables 
were  free  males  over  sixteen  years  of  age,  or  slaves,  male  and  female, 
over  twelve  years.  Subsequent  laws  provided  that  taxables  should  be 
white  males  over  sixteen  years  of  age,  and  all  blacks  (free  or  slave) 
over  twelve  years.  (Davis,  Laws,  ed.  of  1764.  P-  202.) 

*  Ibid.,  V.,  150-151. 

*  Ibid.,  VI,  228. 

4  Chapter  II  of  1723;  given  only  by  title  in  Davis,  Laws  (i750»  53. 
but  in  full  in  Bishop,  History  of  Elections  in  the  American  Colonies, 
275- 


94     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

certain  form  of  roof  and  chimneys,  and  maintaining  of  the 
house  in  habitable  repair.1 

So  far  as  the  writer  knows,  there  was  but  one  elective 
officer  in  North  Carolina,  other  than  the  representatives  in 
assembly,  during  the  proprietary  period.  This  officer  was 
the  public  register  of  land  transfers,  births,  burials,  and 
marriages,  who,  under  the  Fundamental  Constitutions,  was 
to  be  appointed  by  the  chief  justice's  court  from  triple  nomi 
nations  made  by  the  freeholders  of  the  precinct ; 2  and  this 
elective  feature  was  enforced  during  the  whole  colonial 
period.3  Apparently  all  the  other  officers  in  the  colony  were 
appointive.  The  vestries,  under  the  law  of  1715  and  earlier 
acts,  were  close  corporations,  filling  vacancies  in  their  num 
ber  and  appointing  the  church-wardens ;  4  the  precinct  courts 
were  appointed  by  the  governor  and  council,5  and  themselves 
in  turn  appointed  constables,6  overseers  of  highways,7  pack 
ers  of  tobacco,8  and  other  officers ;  while  the  towns  were  in 
the  control  of  self-perpetuating  commissioners.9  Still  other 
officers  were  appointed  by  the  proprietors  directly,  by  the 
governor  and  council,  or  by  the  corporations  named  above. 
Thus,  excepting  the  local  registers,  the  suffrage  during  this 
period  was  limited  to  the  popular  representatives  in  the 
assembly. 

In  conclusion,  it  may  be  said  that  the  suffrage  during  the 


1  For  these   saving  provisions,   see   Davis,   Laws    (1751),  62-65,   92- 
94,  99-101,  103-108,  210;   N.  C.  Col.  Rec.,  II,  386;   IV,  43.    The  usual 
size  of  house  was  sixteen  or  fifteen  feet  by  twenty,  and  occasionally  a 
height  of  eight  feet,  and  one  or  two  brick  or  stone  chimneys  were  also 
required.     Cf.  Porritt,  Unreformed  House  of  Commons,  I,  35. 

2  Statutes  at  Large  of  S.  C.  Col  Rec.,  Ill,  185. 

3  As  late  as  October  8,  1773,  Governor  Morton,  writing  to  the  Board 
of  Trade,  said  the  registers  were  annually  elected  by  the  freeholders 
under  an  old  law  of  1715  (N.  C.  Col.  Rec.,  IX,  691). 

4  N.  C.  Col.  Rec.,  I,  678,  680;   II,  n,  207-217. 
6  Ibid.,  II,  525-526,  540,  565,  572,  etc. 

6  Ibid.,  I,  523-5,  533,  548,  652,  etc. 

1 1bid.,  494-495,  523-525,  531,  550,  576,  611-612,  etc. 

8  Ibid.,  652-653,  656. 

'For  an  illustration  of  these  commissions,  see  Davis,  Laws   (1751),. 

62-65- 


The  Suffrage  in  North  Carolina.  95 

proprietary  period  was  not  placed  upon  a  firm  basis  until 
the  restoration  of  internal  quiet  and  the  passage  of  the  elec 
tion  act  in  1715.  The  franchise  begins  with  the  confusion 
of  words  in  the  royal  charter;  it  is  given  a  more  definite 
basis  by  the  constitutions,  but  we  are  in  doubt  whether  these 
provisions  ever  were  actually  enforced  or  not.  It  has  been 
noted  that  proprietors  and  governors  used  on  different  occa 
sions  the  words  inhabitants,  or  freeholders,  or  freemen,  as 
descriptive  of  the  electing  citizens;  and  a  confusion  thus 
existing  in  the  royal  charter  and  the  governors'  writs  was 
not  to  be  avoided  among  the  common  people.  Particularly 
was  this  true  in  the  troublous  times,  of  which  the  colony 
had  not  a  few,  when  private  and  property  rights,  as  well  as 
political  privileges,  were  invaded  by  the  conflicting  parties. 
The  quelling  of  the  riots  made  possible  the  regular  enforce 
ment  of  such  an  election  law  as  that  of  1715.  This  act, 
perhaps,  as  Governor  Burrington  later  remarked,  drawn 
from  earlier  precedents,  was  remarkably  liberal  in  its  pro 
visions,  in  that  it  made  the  voting  privilege  co-extensive 
with  the  poll-tax  upon  white  male  citizens.  After  1715 
elections  were  not  yet  freed  from  indirect  control  by  the 
governor,1  but  without  doubt  they  were  more  honestly  man 
aged  than  heretofore.  The  town  suffrage  introduced  a  slight 
variation  in  the  laws,  and  the  period  closes  with  an  election 
law  in  1727  of  which  we  have  only  the  title.2 

II.  Under  the  Royal  Government,  1728-1775. 

The  basis  of  the  representative  and  elective  systems  in  the 
royal  colonies  is  generally  said  to  be  the  commission  and  in- 

1  See  some  interesting  letters  of  Burrington  written  in  1725,  and 
coming  to  light  in  1733,  concerning  the  management  of  elections  (N.  C. 
Col.  Rec.,  Ill,  526).  The  journal  of  the  lower  house  in  1726,  perhaps 
as  a  result  of  the  governor's  management,  shows  a  number  of  disputed 
elections  {ibid.,  II,  on). 

2 "  An  Act,  for  Regulating  Towns,  and  Elections  of  Burgesses,"  1727, 
Ch.  II.  Title  only  given  in  Davis,  Laws  (i750,  67.  Governor  Bur 
rington  said,  "  This  Act  was  made  for  regulating  the  Town  Elections 
of  Burgesses  there  being  three  Towns  in  this  Government  that  hath 
the  priviledge  of  sending  Burgesses  and  this  Act  was  to  adjust  the 
manner  of  chuseing  them ;"  N.  C.  Col.  Rec.,  Ill,  193. 


g6     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

structions  of  the  royal  governor  for  the  colony.  This  was 
the  view  held  by  the  English  government  and  the  one  acted 
upon  in  most  of  the  royal  colonies.  We  shall  see  that  in 
North  Carolina  the  royal  instructions  and  vetoes  almost  over 
turned  the  constitution  as  it  had  grown  up  under  the  pro 
prietary  government,  and  that  the  people  or  their  representa 
tives  time  and  again  turn  away  from  these  instructions  back 
to  the  original  charters  and  the  Fundamental  Constitutions, 
which  they  claimed  were  the  true  basis  for  the  provincial 
government.  The  contest  between  the  two  began  almost 
immediately  after  Governor  Burrington,  the  first  royal  gov 
ernor,  entered  upon  his  duties. 

According  to  Burrington's  commission,  which  is  similar 
to  those  granted  in  other  colonies  at  this  time,  the  governor 
was  authorized  to  call  general  assemblies  of  the  freeholders 
and  planters  in  a  manner  agreeable  to  the  laws  and  customs 
of  the  province  of  North  Carolina.1  By  his  instructions, 
dated  almost  a  year  after  the  commission,  he  was  directed 
to  "  take  care  that  the  Members  of  the  Assembly  be  elected 
only  by  freeholders  as  being  more  agreeable  to  the  custom 
of  this  Kingdom  to  which  you  are  as  near  as  may  be  to  con 
form  yourself  in  all  particulars."  2  It  is  clear  that  this  is 
far  different  from  the  tax-paying  basis  for  the  suffrage 
established  by  the  act  of  1715,  and  it  did  not  take  Burrington 
long  to  see  the  divergence. 

Immediately  after  his  arrival  he  issued  writs  for  the  elec 
tion  of  representatives,  and,  ignoring  the  old  law,  he  fol 
lowed  the  terms  of  his  instructions  by  requiring  the  elections 
to  be  by  the  freeholders  in  the  respective  towns  and  pre 
cincts.3  Such  a  change  in  the  election  customs  without  any 
warning  naturally  led  to  popular  opposition;  the  assembly 
journals  show  a  number  of  disputed  election  cases,4  and  Bur 
rington  wrote  to  the  Board  of  Trade  that  the  new  writs  had 
"  occasioned  a  great  deal  of  heat  among  the  people,"  which 
was  "  much  heightened  by  those  who  love  to  raise  a  clamour 
against  me."  5 

1  N.  C.  Col.  Rec.,  Ill,  68 ;   January  15,  1729-30. 

3  Ibid.,  93;   dated  December  14,  1730. 

3  Ibid.,  212. 

4 Ibid.,  289,  301,  558,  584-  'Ibid.,  207. 


The  Suffrage  in  North  Carolina.  97 

Burrington's  relations  with  the  people  were  from  the  first 
unhappy,  and  in  his  quarrel  with  their  representatives  he 
tried  in  two  ways  to  change  the  constitution  of  the  assembly 
and  have  a  house  elected  favorable  to  himself;  first,  by  re 
stricting  the  suffrage,  and,  secondly,  by  reapportioning  the 
representatives,  or,  when  this  failed,  by  erecting  new  pre 
cincts.  Some  time  before  September,  1731,  he  sent  to  Eng 
land  his  opinions  upon  all  the  legislation  between  1715  and 
I729,1  and  said  of  the  election  act  of  1715  that  it  "  was  an 
old  Law  taken  from  one  of  the  Lords  Proprietors  Original 
Constitutions  and  hath  undergone  little  alteration."  2  He 
pointed  out  that  "  all  Freemen  are  qualifyed  to  vote  as  well 
as  Freeholders  which  is  contrary  to  my  Instructions  on  that 
Head."  Objection  was  also  made  to  the  holding  of  elections 
by  virtue  of  the  law  without  any  writs,  since  it  "  occasions 
a  great  deal  of  Mobbing  and  tumults;"  and  the  governor 
therefore  advised  the  repeal  of  the  law  and  the  holding  of 
elections  by  the  freeholders  according  to  writs  issued  by  the 
governor. 

From  this  time  down  to  the  close  of  his  administration  in 
1734,  Burrington  is  insistent  in  his  letters  to  England  that 
the  law  should  be  repealed.  He  later  found  other  objections 
to  it.  The  short  term  of  the  biennial  assemblies  made  well- 
meaning  (  !)  members  timorous  in  their  actions,  through  the 
fear  that  they  might  not  be  re-elected.  The  apportionment 
of  representatives  was  unjust,  for,  said  the  governor,  "  a 
Small  part  of  the  Province  have  Twenty  Six  Representa 
tives,  all  the  Remainder  but  ten ;"  and  he  recommended  that 
four  precincts  which  together,  under  the  act  of  1715,  had 
nineteen  representatives,  should  be  formed  into  only  two  dis 
tricts,  and  each  of  these  send  two  delegates.  His  reasons 
for  such  a  radical  change  were  that  two  precincts  have 
"  neither  Persons  fit  for  Magistrates  nor  Burgesses ;"  and 
that  he  is  of  the  opinion  that  two  representatives  are  just  as 
sufficient  for  precincts  in  North  Carolina  as  for  counties  in 
Virginia.3  He  closes  with  the  sentence,  "  I  cant  help  think 
ing  we  shall  have  more  orderly  Elections  and  more  substan- 

1 N.  C.  Col.  Rec.,  HI,  180-194- 
*Ibid.,  180. 
8  Ibid.,  207. 

7 


98     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

tial  men  chosen  if  none  but  Freeholders  vote."  In  Feb 
ruary,  I/3I-2,1  he  writes  again  to  urge  the  repeal  of  the 
Biennial  Act,  again  looking  forward  to  more  orderly  elec 
tions  and  expecting  that  the  members  will  "  behave  more 
decently"  if  the  law  were  not  in  force.  In  August,  1732,  the 
Board  of  Trade  replied  to  his  repeated  suggestions  that  until 
the  law  officers  report  upon  the  Biennial  Act  no  change 
should  be  made  in  the  constitution  of  the  assembly.2 

But  before  this  letter  was  written,  Burrington  had  tried 
another  plan  by  which  the  assembly  might  be  made  more 
subservient  to  his  interests.  In  May,  1732,  a  new  precinct 
with  the  right  of  representation  was  erected  by  the  governor 
and  council;  in  October  a  second  one  was  established,  and 
this  was  followed  shortly  by  a  third.3  It  was  claimed  by 
Burrington's  opponents  that  he  had  personally  "  earnestly 
promoted  such  Petitions  (even  forming  and  writing  some  of 
them  himself)/'  for  the  erecting  of  the  new  precincts.4 
"  Where  is  the  necessity,"  these  leaders  of  the  assembly  ask, 
"  of  these  divisions?  these  new  appointments?"5  They 
pointed  to  the  fact  that  one  of  the  precincts  had  not  over 
thirty  families  of  inhabitants,  and  "  can  scarce  make  out 
a  sufficient  number  of  People  for  Justices  and  Jury ;"  6  while 
among  these  thirty  families  there  were  only  three  freeholders, 
or  voters.  In  another  precinct  the  number  of  freeholders 
was  but  slightly  larger.  The  protestants  picture  ironically 
an  election  in  which,  since  the  writs  permit  only  freeholders 
to  elect,  the  three  freeholders  would  control  the  elections, — 
"  two  are  to  stand  candidates  and  the  third  to  elect  them."  7 

In  addition  to  the  argument  that  there  was  no  necessity 
for  the  erection  of  new  precincts,  the  petitioners  protested 
that  the  governor  had  no  right  to  create  new  representative 
districts,  arguing  that  this  would  make  the  whole  legislature 
subservient  to  a  part — to  the  governor  and  council;  that  it 

1N.  C.  Col.  Rec.,  111,325. 

'Ibid.,  355- 

*Ibid.,  417,  425,  442. 

*Ibid.,  381. 

6  Ibid.,  452. 

•  !&«*.,  381. 

'Ibid.,  450. 


The  Suffrage  in  North  Carolina.  99 

was  contrary  to  the  customs  of  the  neighboring  colonies,  and 
even  repugnant  to  the  king's  instructions.1  But  Burrington 
could  quote  colonial  history  as  well  as  the  assemblymen. 
He  pointed  out  that  only  one  instance2  was  known  where 
a  precinct  was  erected  by  law  and  not  by  the  governor  and 
council,3  and  he  claimed  that  the  opposition  to  the  new 
precincts  arose  from  two  councillors  who  desired  popularity 
with  the  assembly  and  people. 

The  governor  continued  sending  election  writs  for  elec 
tions  by  the  freeholders  only,4  and  in  the  spring  of  1733 
writs  were  issued  to  the  new  precincts.  But  in  neither  in 
stance  did  the  governor  gain  his  point;  the  elections  were 
not  confined  to  freeholders,  in  spite  of  instructions  and 
writs,5  and  the  representatives  from  the  new  precincts  were 
not  permitted  to  take  seats  in  the  assembly.6  The  assembly 
of  July,  1733,  had  a  stormy  meeting.  The  governor  told 
them  that  assemblies  would  soon  become  the  greatest  griev 
ance  in  the  province  if  the  "  heat  and  partiality"  continued. 
"  Burgessing,"  he  said,  "  has  been  for  some  years  a  source 
of  lyes  and  occasion  of  disturbances,  which  has  deterred 
good  men  from  being  Candidates  or  entering  the  lists  of 
noise  and  Faction;"7  "  bodys  of  men  cannot  blush,  and 
that's  your  advantage."  For  some  reason,  Burrington's  next 
and  last  assembly  showed  a  disposition  to  compromise  with 
the  governor,  and  bills  were  introduced  to  establish  his  new 
precincts  by  law  8  and  to  limit  the  suffrage  to  freeholders.9 
But  in  the  midst  of  the  session  a  new  governor,  Gabriel  John- 


1 N.  C.  Col.  Rec.,  Ill,  383-385,  574-576. 

1  The  governor  was  in  error  here,  as  three  precincts  had  been  erected 
by  act  of  the  legislature,  in  addition  to  the  act  of  1715,  which  had  recog 
nized  the  existence  of  all  the  early  precincts  (ibid.,  453~454»  575)- 

8  Ibid.,  443-444- 

'Ibid.,  536. 

8  Burrington  said  to  the  assembly,  "  Neither  doth  the  King's  In 
structions  that  only  Freeholders  should  vote  find  any  weight  in  your 
Elections  tho'  always  inserted  in  the  Writts"  (ibid.,  560). 

•/&*<*.,  611. 

7  Ibid.,  560. 

8  Ibid.,  640. 

9  Ibid.,  637. 


ioo     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

ston,  arrived  in  the  province  and  the  work  of  the  assembly 
ceased.1 

Governor  Johnston  almost  immediately  issued  writs  for 
an  election  of  assemblymen  by  the  freeholders  of  the  re 
spective  precincts  and  towns.2  Although  the  election  was 
not  without  irregularities,3  yet  the  new  assembly  took  up  the 
work  of  the  old  one,  and  considered  a  bill  for  repealing  the 
clause  of  the  act  of  1715  which  permitted  freemen  to  vote.4 
The  result  was  a  restriction  of  the  suffrage  to  freeholders.5 
The  preamble  of  the  act  of  1734-5  says  that  "  it  hath  been 
found  inconvenient  for  the  Freemen"  to  vote,  and  that  the 
royal  instructions  had  directed  that  only  freeholders  should 
vote  for  members  of  assembly.  The  qualifications  of  voters 
and  assemblymen  were  then  given  as  follows : 

"  no  person  hereafter  shall  be  admitted  to  give  his  vote  in  any  Election 

for  Members  of  Assembly  for  the  precincts  in  this  Province,  unless 

such  person  has  been  an  Inhabitant  in  the  precinct  where  he  votes  at 

ileast  six  months  and  has  bona  fide  a  Freehold  in  his  own  Right  of  at 

'least  fifty  Acres  of  Land  in  the  said  precinct,  which  he  shall  have  been 

fpossest  of  Three  Months  before  he  offers  to  give  his  vote. 

"  And  be  it  Enacted  by  the  Authority  aforesaid,  That  hereafter  no 
person  shall  be  deemed  qualified  or  admitted  to  sit  in  the  Assembly, 
unless  he  has  been  one  full  year  an  Inhabitant  of  this  Province,  and  is 
possessed  in  his  own  Right  of  at  least  one  hundred  acres  of  Freehold 
Land  in  the  precinct  where  he  is  Elected  or  Chosen." 

Thus  through  the  persistence  of  the  royal  governors  and 
the  force  of  the  English  instructions  the  suffrage  was  at  last 
limited  to  freeholders;  the  ambiguity  of  the  charters  and 
proprietary  writs  which  had  permitted  landless  freemen  to 
vote  was  cleared  away,  and  their  evident  purpose  finally 
accomplished.  In  this  case,  as  in  practically  all  the  royal 
colonies  except  South  Carolina,  the  English  government 

1 N.  C.  Col  Rec.,  Ill,  643- 
3  Ibid. ,  IV,  3. 

3  Among  the  charges  is  one  that  some  person  "  had  stifled  the  writt 
of  Election  so  that  due  notice  was  not  given,"  N.  C.  Col.  Rec.,  IV,  117, 
118,  119. 

4  Ibid.,  88,  89,  97,  98,  108,  125,  126. 

6  Chapter  II  of  1734-5;  title  only  in  Davis,  Laws  (1751),  79,  but  in 
full  in  Bishop,  History  of  Elections  in  the  American  Colonies,  277-279. 


The  Suffrage  in  North  Carolina.  101 

rather  than  colonial  opinion  led  to  the  restriction  of  the  suf 
frage  to  freeholders.  It  must  be  remembered,  however,  that 
the  terms  of  this  act,  requiring  six  months'  residence  and 
fifty  acres  of  freehold,  did  not  extend  to  !h_e  three  towns, 
where,  under  the  terms  of  the  act  of  1723,  tenants  or  the 
owners  of  untenanted  houses  could  vote.  It  is  remarkable, 
too,  that  the  formal  exclusion  of  negroes  was  laid  aside,  not 
again  to  be  taken  up  until  far  into  the  nineteenth  century. 

An  act  of  the  same  assembly  established  two  of  the  three 
precincts  which  Burrington  and  his  council  had  tried  to 
erect.1  But  Johnston  was  not  satisfied  with  the  suffrage 
limitations  and  the  legal  establishment  of  precincts.  Like 
Burrington,  he  wrote  repeatedly  against  the  act  of  I7I52 
urging  many  objections,  but  emphasizing  particularly  the 
inequalities  in  representation  which  it  established.  At  last, 
on  July  21,  1737,  the  King  in  Council,  acting  upon  the 
advice  of  the  Board  of  Trade,  "  was  graciously  pleased  to 
declare  his  disallowance  of  the  said  act."  3  Yet  the  repeal 
of  the  act  of  1715  led  to  no  immediate  change  in  the  method 
of  apportionment  of  representatives  or  the  manner  of  holding 
elections,  for  Johnston  now  issued  writs  calling  upon  the 
freeholders  "  to  choose  Representatives"  without  stating  any 
number,  and  the  counties  continued  to  send  the  numbers 
formerly  apportioned  to  them.4  Fifteen  years  after  Burring 
ton  began  his  attack  on  the  law  of  1715,  the  precincts  were 
still  represented  in  the  way  which  to  him  appeared  so  unjust.5 

In  1743  6  a  comprehensive  election  law  was  passed  which 
contained  many  new  features  relating  to  the  taking  of  the 
ballot,  but  it  did  not  change  the  qualifications  of  the  suffrage. 
The  act  provided  that  election  inspectors  to  assist  the  sheriff 
should  be  appointed  either  by  the  candidates  or  the  sheriff; 
it  required  the  sheriff  to  come  to  the  county  election  place 

1N.  C.  Col.  Rec.,  IV,  155. 

2  Ibid.,  25,  204. 

3  Ibid.,  251. 

4  Ibid.,  1185;   V,  87. 

8  The  northern  counties  kept  their  unequal  representation  until  1746 
(ibid.,  IV,  493,  814-815),  and  it  was  restored  to  them  by  the  royal  in 
structions  to  Governor  Dobbs  in  1754  (Records,  V,  mo). 

'Davis,  Laws  (1751),  177-180. 


IO2     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

"  provided  with  a  small  Box,  with  a  Lid  or  Cover,  having 
a  Hole  in  it,  not  exceeding  Half  an  Inch  in  Diameter."  The 
voter  must  bring  a  "  Scroll  of  Paper,  rolled  up,"  on  which 
were  the  names  of  the  candidates  for  whom  he  voted;  the 
sheriff  was  to  take  the  ballot,  and  in  the  presence  of  the  in 
spectors  put  it  into  the  box ;  and  he  and  the  inspectors  were 
each  to  keep  a  separate  list  of  the  voters'  names.  The  per 
sons  having  the  greatest  number  of  votes  were  to  be  declared 
elected,  and  in  case  of  a  tie  the  sheriff  was  authorized  to  cast 
a  deciding  vote.  The  polls  were  to  be  open  from  ten  o'clock 
in  the  morning  until  one,  and  from  half-past  two  until  sun 
set.  Upon  the  request  of  a  candidate  or  any  other  freeholder, 
the  voter  might  be  required  to  take  oath  that  he  was  properly 
qualified. 

The  fifty  acres  of  freehold  and  six  months'  residence  were 
still  required  of  electors,  who  now,  as  in  the  act  of  1715, 
were  to  be  twenty-one  years  of  age.  A  freeholder  was  now 
defined  to  be  a  person  "  who  hath  an  Estate,  Real,  for  his 
own  Life,  or  the  Life  of  another,  or  any  Estate  of  greater 
Dignity."  Fines  were  to  be  imposed  upon  unqualified  per 
sons  voting,  or  upon  qualified  persons  who  voted  twice ;  and 
candidates  who  had  offered  bribes  or  favors  to  electors  were 
rendered  incapable  to  sit  in  the  assembly  for  which  they  were 
elected.  The  ballot  features  were  also  extended  to  elections 
in  towns. 

We  now  come  to  the  time  when  the  apportionment  contest 
reached  its  culmination.  It  is  impossible  to  enter  into  all 
the  details  of  this  interesting  period,  but  a  summary  of  the 
-events  may  be  given.  Since  the  days  of  the  proprietary 
government  the  precincts  of  the  north-eastern  section  of  the 
colony  called  Albemarle  County  had  each  sent  five  members 
to  the  assembly ;  while  those  of  Bath  County,  in  the  south, 
sent  only  two  each.1  The  political  distinction  between  the 
two  parts  of  the  province  in  time  came  to  be  an  economic 
one.  We  are  told  that  imports  came  almost  exclusively  from 


1  The  documents  relating  to  the  election  and  apportionment  contro 
versy  take  up  a  large  part  of  Vols.  IV  and  V  of  the  Colonial  Records. 
A  good  short  summary  is  given  in  a  representation  of  the  Board  of 
Trade  to  the  king,  March  14,  1754  (Col.  Rec.,  V,  84-91). 


The  Suffrage  in  North  Carolina.  103 

Virginia  into  the  northern  counties,1  and  by  the  merchants 
there  were  sent  to  the  southern  counties ;  and  that  the  north 
ern  merchants  were  forbidden  by  contract  to  pay  debts  in 
Virginia  in  any  bills  of  exchange.2  The  southern  merchants, 
on  the  other  hand,  wanted  a  cheap  paper  currency,  which 
would  be  an  advantage  to  them  in  the  settlement  of  debts 
within  the  province.  Hence  the  northern  members  opposed, 
and  the  southern  members  favored,  a  colonial  currency. 
The  maintenance  of  the  existing  representation  in  the  assem 
bly  was  thus  a  vital  necessity  to  the  north,  while  the  attain 
ment  of  equality  was  the  political  ideal  of  the  south.  The 
twenty-nine  representatives  from  the  six  northern  counties 
voted  solidly  under  strong  leaders,  and  by  their  number 
could  break  a  quorum  or  prevent  the  passage  of  any  acts 
objectionable  to  their  constituents.3 

As  early  as  1741  Governor  Johnston  had  taken  the  side 
of  the  southern  counties,  and  by  calling  an  assembly  at  Wil 
mington  in  the  south  he  had  hoped  to  keep  away  the  northern 
members  and  have  an  assembly  to  his  own  taste,4  but  at  this 
time  he  failed.  He  tried  the  same  plan  with  somewhat  better 
success  in  1746.  An  intractable  assembly  meeting  at  New- 
bern  in  June,  1746,  was  prorogued  to  the  following  Novem 
ber,  with  Wilmington  as  a  meeting  place.  Here,  two 

1  The  title  precinct  was  changed  to  that  of  county  in  an  act  of  1738, 
Chap.  Ill  (Davis,  Laws  (i750>  P-  9°)- 

*N.  C.  Col.  Rec.,  IV,  1217. 

8  Ibid.,  863,  870,  1152-1153,  1164. 

*  Ibid.,  584.  In  writing  to  the  Board  of  Trade,  December  21,  1741, 
respecting  a  much  desired  quit-rent  law,  he  says, 

"  All  imaginable  precautions  were  taken  to  secure  the  success 
of  this  Affair. 

"  The  Assembly  was  called  in  the  most  Southern  part  of 
the  Province  on  purpose  to  keep  at  home  the  Northern  Mem 
bers  who  are  most  numerous  and  from  whom  the  greatest  oppo 
sition  was  expected  And  some  of  the  most  troublesome  leading 
men  were  prevailed  upon  to  be  absent. 

"  By  this  management  there  were  present  but  two  Members 
more  than  was  necessary  to  make  a  house,  which  then  con 
sisted  of  the  most  moderate  and  most  sensible  men  of  the 
Colony.  ..." 


IO4     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

hundred  miles  away  from  the  usual  place  of  assembly  meet 
ings  and  of  court  sessions,  at  an  inclement  season  of  the 
year,  which  made  it  dangerous  to  cross  ferriages  from  seven 
to  ten  miles  broad,1  the  governor  met,  as  he  himself  admitted, 
"  not  much  above  a  fourth  part  of  the  Members."  2  Eight 
members  out  of  fifty-four  met,  admitted  six  or  seven  newly 
elected  members,3  and  then  proceeded  to  shear  the  northern 
counties  of  their  political  power. 

The  most  important  act  was  one  "  for  the  better  ascer 
taining  the  Number  of  Members  to  be  chosen  for  the  several 
Counties  within  this  Province  to  sit  and  vote  in  General 
Assembly;  and  for  Establishing  a  more  equal  Representa 
tive  of  all  his  Majesty's  Subjects  in  the  House  of  Bur 
gesses."  \  The  journals  of  the  assembly  show  that  the  act 
was  rushed  through  both  houses  in  three  days.5  The  pre 
amble  of  the  act  stated  that  several  of  the  northern  counties 
had  "  assumed  to  themselves  the  Privilege  of  choosing  Five 
Persons  respectively  to  represent  them  in  the  General  Assem 
bly,  without  any  Law,  or  Pretence  of  Law,  to  support  such 
Claim ;"  6  while  the  southern  counties,  which  were  more 
populous  and  contributed  much  more  largely  to  the  public 
taxes  than  the  north,  were  given  only  two  representatives; 
"  from  which  Inequality  great  Mischiefs  and  Disorders  have 
arisen,  and  the  best  Schemes  for  the  Good  and  Welfare  of 
the  Province,  by  this  Means,  have  been  utterly  defeated." 
It  was  then  enacted  that  the  inhabitants  of  each  county 
already  erected,  or  which  should  be  erected,  should  send  two 
persons,  "  and  no  more,"  to  be  their  representatives,  and  the 
freeholders  of  the  four  towns  of  Edenton,  Bath-town,  New- 
bern,  and  Wilmington  should  each  send  one  representative 
as  formerly. 

This  act  was  followed  by  another  for  fixing  the  seat  of 
government  at  Newbern,  passed  with  the  same  "  manage 
ment,  precipitation  &  surprise  when  very  few  Members 

*N.  C.  Col.  Rcc.,  IV,  1158. 

2  Ibid.,  870. 

9  Ibid. t  870,  1157,  1158. 

4  Davis,  Laws  (1751),  223;   N.  C.  Col.  Rec.,  IV,  1154-1155. 

6  Ibid.,  835,  840. 

'Davis,  Laws  (i75i)»  223. 


The  Suffrage  in  North  Carolina.  105 

were  present,"  as  the  Board  of  Trade  wrote  to  the  king; 
and  containing  such  features  that  the  governor  ought  not 
to  have  assented  to  it  if  it  had  been  passed  by  a  full  house.1 

Johnston  made  use  of  the  new  representation  act  at  once, 
issuing  writs  in  December,  1746,  for  the  election  of  two 
members  in  each  county.2  The  northern  counties  refused  to 
recognize  the  law  on  which  the  new  writs  were  founded, 
and  insisted  upon  electing  their  old  number  of  representa 
tives.3  But  the  assembly  denied  them  admission,  and  or 
dered  new  elections  for  two  members  in  each  county.4  After 
this  the  northern  counties  refused  to  elect  members,  they 
denied  the  authority  of  the  legislature  elected  under  the  new 
act,  they  paid  no  taxes,  and  for  seven  years  were  in  a  state 
of  practical  rebellion  against  the  governor.5 

The  contest  was  then  taken  to  England,  both  sides  using 
agents  to  represent  them  before  the  Board  of  Trade  and  the 
other  English  authorities.6  There  the  decision  was  not 
reached  until  1754,  almost  eight  years  after  the  contest  had 
begun.  In  the  meantime  Governor  Johnston  had  erected 
new  counties  by  law  and  by  proclamation  in  the  southern 
district,  and  thus  strengthened  the  position  of  that  section.7 
Acts  for  emitting  a  paper  currency  and  regulating  quit- 
rents  were  also  passed,8  and  Johnston  thought  "  that  more 
had  been  done  for  the  Settlement  and  Prosperity  of  this 
Country  within  this  three  years.  .  .  .  [1746-1749]  than 
ever  has  been  done  before  since  the  foundation  of  the  Col 
ony."  9  Governor  Johnston  died  in  July,  I752,10  and  for 
two  more  years  the  anarchy  which  he  had  done  so  much  to 
bring  about  continued  its  evil  influence  in  the  colony. 

The  Lords  of  Trade  sent  a  long  representation  to  the 

1 N.  C.  Col.  Rec.,  V,  108. 

2  Copies  of  writs  are  given,  N.  C.  Col.  Rec.,  IV,  1180-1183. 

9  Ibid.,  856-857,  1180-1183. 
'Ibid.,  857. 

6  Ibid.,  1153;    Prefatory  Notes  to  Vol.  IV,  xix. 
'Ibid.,  879-883,  1020,  1158. 

7  Ibid.,  887-889;    V,  88. 

8  Ibid.,  IV,  1217. 
*  Ibid.,  919. 

10  Ibid.,  1314- 


io6     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

king  in  March,  1754,  reviewing  the  history  of  elections  in 
the  colony  of  North  Carolina,  advising  the  repeal  of  a  num 
ber  of  the  colonial  acts,  and  proposing  certain  instructions 
for  Arthur  Dobbs,  who  had  already  been  appointed  gov 
ernor.1  About  a  month  later,  the  King  in  Council  acted 
upon  this  advice  by  repealing  twenty-six  of  the  most  im 
portant  laws  of  the  colony.2  This  remarkable  action  was 
taken,  first,  to  set  aside  the  acts  of  the  Wilmington  Assembly 
of  November,  1746;  and  secondly,  in  order  to  clear  away 
the  legal  basis  upon  which  the  representative  system  had 
rested  since  the  proprietary  period  and  found  it  solely  upon 
the  royal  instructions  to  the  governor.3  Among  the  re 
pealed  acts  were  five  laws  relating  principally  to  land 
matters  passed  forty  years  earlier,  in  1715;  twelve  passed 
between  1722  and  1749,  erecting  counties  or  towns  and  con 
ferring  the  right  of  representation  upon  them;  still  others 
were  the  elaborate  election  law  of  1743,  the  vestry  act  of 
1741,  the  reapportionment  act  of  1746,  the  seat  of  govern 
ment  act  of  the  same  year,  and  others  of  less  importance. 
It  is  safe  to  say  that  no  colony  in  the  eighteenth  century 
suffered  such  a  complete  demolition  of  the  legal  basis  of  its 
representative  system,  election  customs,  church  organization 
and  land  laws  as  was  here  accomplished  in  North  Carolina. 
For  six  years  after  this  wholesale  repeal  there  was  no  gen 
eral  election  law ;  for  ten  years  the  vestry  acts  met  with  suc 
cessive  repeals  in  England;  while  the  royal  veto  came  into 
very  frequent  use  from  this  time  down  to  the  Revolution  in 
connection  with  quit-rent  and  court  laws.4 

It  was  the  intention  of  the  English  authorities  that  the 
representative  system  and  election  custom  should  rest  upon 
the  royal  prerogative  as  expressed  in  the  instructions  to  the 
governors,  but  they  wisely  adopted  the  advice  of  the  Crown's 
law  officers  that  it  was  not  "  advisable  for  the  Crown  to  im- 

1 N.  C.  Col  Rec.,  V,  81-108. 

9  Ibid.  f  115-118. 

9  Ibid.,  92- 

4  For  repealed  acts,  see  N.  C.  Col.  Rec.,  V,  115-118;  VI,  29,  139,  327- 
328,  707,  723,  900;  VIII,  266,  616;  IX,  284,  287,  665.  In  the  nineteen 
years  between  1754  and  1773  the  royal  disallowance  was  signified  to  at 
least  fifty-one  North  Carolina  laws. 


The  Suffrage  in  North  Carolina.  107 

peach  rights  heretofore  granted  &  enjoyed."  1  Thus  it 
happened  that  the  new  governor,  Arthur  Dobbs,  received 
directions  to  restore  the  unequal  apportionment  of  represen 
tatives  existing  before  the  act  of  1746,  and  in  his  instruc 
tions  2  an  assembly  of  sixty  members  was  provided  for,  com 
posed  of  five  members  from  each  of  five  counties,  three  from 
one  county,  two  from  each  of  fourteen  counties,  and  one  each 
from  four  towns.  The  members  were  to  be  elected  by  the 
freeholders  of  the  respective  counties  and  towns,  and  a 
quorum  —  a  vital  point  with  the  northern  members  —  was 
fixed  at  only  fifteen,  one-quarter  of  the  whole.  The  gov 
ernor  was  empowered  to  grant  these  rights  in  representation 
by  charters  to  the  respective  counties  or  towns,  and  in  the 
southern  district  he  could  erect  new  towns  or  counties  and 
confer  upon  them  the  right  of  electing  representatives.3  The 
subsequent  control  of  the  elective  system,  the  qualifications 
of  electors  and  elected,  and  the  apportionment  of  representa 
tives  was  denied  to  the  legislature  in  the  following  words  : 

"  And  it  is  Our  further  Will  and  Pleasure  that  you  do  not  for  the 
future  upon  any  pretence  whatsoever  give  your  assent  to  any  law  or 
laws  to  be  passed  in  our  said  Province  by  which  the  number  of  the 
Assembly  shall  be  enlarged  or  diminished  the  duration  of  it  ascertained 
the  qualifications  of  the  electors  or  elected  fixed  or  altered  or  by  which 
any  regulations  shall  be  establish'd  with  respect  thereto  inconsistent 
with  these  our  Instructions  to  you  or  prejudicial  to  that  right  and 
authority  which  you  derive  from  us  in  virtue  of  our  Commission  and 
Instruction."  * 

As  soon  as  Dobbs  reached  the  colony  he  saw  how  con 
fusing  the  repeal  of  the  fundamental  laws  would  be,  and 
despite  his  instructions  he  delayed  to  announce  the  repeal 
until  after  an  assembly  election  had  been  held.  He  feared 
it  would  "  put  the  Electors  into  confusion  .  .  .  and  in  the 
unsettled  State  of  the  province  &  their  present  Divisions 
wou'd  have  had  a  very  bad  Effect."  5  Soon  both  assembly 

1N.  C.  Col.  Rec.,V,gi. 

*  Ibid.,  i  no;    June  17,  1754. 

*Ibid.,  mi. 


6  Ibid.,  326. 


io8     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

and  governor  were  asking  for  a  modification  of  the  instruc 
tions,1  and  in  June,  1755,  the  King  in  Council  sent  addi 
tional  instructions  to  Dobbs,  permitting  the  legislature  to  re 
establish  by  law  the  respective  towns  and  counties,  provided 
no  grant  of  the  right  of  representation  was  made  to  them.2 
The  privilege  thus  given  was  soon  exercised  by  the  assembly, 
and  in  1756  acts  were  passed  restoring  the  boundaries  and 
internal  organization  of  the  counties  and  towns,  without 
granting  the  right  of  representation,  which  the  assembly  ex 
pressly  stated  was  the  king's  prerogative.3  This  right  was 
conferred  in  special  charters  granted  by  the  governor  to  the 
several  towns  and  counties.4 

The  absence  of  a  general  election  law  after  the  repeal 
in  1754  of  the  act  of  1743  soon  led  to  the  introduction  of 
election  bills  into  the  assembly,  although  the  need  might  not 
seem  great  when  only  one  election  was  held  between  the 
years  1746  and  I76o.5  In  1757  a  bill  passed  both  houses 
containing  a  provision  that  voters  should  be  given  an  oath 
"  that  you  will  not  vote  for  no  representative,  but  such  as 
you  think  best  qualified  and  most  inclined  to  promote  his 
Majties  Interest  and  that  of  this  County."  6  This  act  the 
governor  imagined  was  introduced  by  a  certain  Murray 
"  and  his  Junto,"  "  that  they  might  make  me  unpopular  with 
the  Assembly  in  rejecting  their  favourite  Bill."  7  He  re 
fused  to  agree  to  it  because  contrary  to  his  instructions.8 
In  the  following  year  the  lower  house  appointed  a  committee 
of  eleven  members  to  bring  in  a  bill  for  regulating  elections,9" 
but  apparently  this  committee  never  reported. 


1 N.  C.  Col.  Rec.,  V,  297,  301-303,  326. 

2  Ibid.,  341,  352,  405-407,  4i5 ;  XI,  124. 

8  Davis,  Laws  (1764),  86;  N.  C.  Col.  Rec.,  V,  645. 

4  AT.  C.  Col  Rec.,  V,  767-768,  812;   VI,  33i~333,  etc. 

6  The  assembly  elected  under  the  new  apportionment  act  of  1746  con 
tinued   in   session   until   Governor   Dobbs's   arrival   in    1754;    then   an 
election  was  held  in  accordance  with  the  law  of  1743,  although  the  act 
had  been  repealed.    This  assembly  of  1754  was  not  dissolved  until  1760. 

"AT.  C.  Col.  Rec.,  V,  879,  881,  889,  900,  903,  905-906,  913-914- 

7  Ibid.,  947- 

8  Ibid.,  889,  913-914- 
*  Ibid.,  1046. 


The  Suffrage  in  North  Carolina.  109 

Before  any  election  law  had  been  passed  Governor  Dobbs, 
in  January,  1760,  dissolved  the  assembly,  in  order,  as  he 
said,  "  to  give  the  Constituents  an  opportunity  of  a  new 
Election  to  pass  proper  Bills  before  new  Cabals  or  Parties 
are  formed  to  mislead  the  Assembly  and  carry  Jobs  for 
themselves."  1  The  result  of  a  dissolution  under  such  cir 
cumstances  might  have  been  foreseen,  but  the  confusion 
could  have  been  lessened,  if  not  altogether  avoided,  by  the 
governor  taking  a  clear  and  firm  position  on  the  subject  of 
the  suffrage,  in  accordance  with  the  provision  of  his  instruc 
tions  for  the  restriction  of  the  suffrage  to  freeholders.2  In 
stead  of  doing  this,  his  policy  was  careless  and  vacillating 
in  the  extreme.3  He  had,  indeed,  before  this  time  granted 
charters  to  most  of  the  counties  giving  them  the  privilege 
of  sending  representatives  to  the  assembly.  Only  one  of 
the  charters  has  been  printed  in  the  Records,  but  in  this  to 
Orange  County,  Dobbs  took  it  upon  himself  to  expressly  de 
fine  the  qualifications  of  voters  and  representatives,  by  limit- 
/  ing  the  suffrage  to  freeholders  of  one  hundred  acres  or  more, 
/  and  the  right  of  being  elected  to  freeholders  of  two  hundred 
'  acres  or  over.4  No  evidence  has  been  found  to  show  that 
this  high  qualification  was  incorporated  into  the  charters  of 
all  the  counties. 

Instead  of  adhering  to  the  terms  of  these  charters,  what 
ever  they  were,  Dobbs,  in  drawing  up  the  writs  of  election, 
went  back  to  the  original  charters  of  the  province,  which 
placed  the  elections  in  the  control  of  the  freemen.  He  di 
rected  that  writs  should  be  issued  for  the  free  inhabitants  of 
the  counties  to  elect  their  delegates,  but  through  an  error 


'AT.  C.  Col.  Rcc.,  VI,  216. 

2  Ibid.,  V,  mo-nil. 

8  It  must  be  remembered  that  in  1760  Dobbs  was  about  seventy-six 
years  of  age  (N.  C.  Col.  Rec.,  V,  Prefatory  Notes,  v,  and  p.  737)- 

*  N.  C.  Col.  Rec.,  V,  767-768,  July  19,  1757-  A  little  before  this  date 
the  lower  house  of  assembly  had  ordered  "  That  no  person  that  is  or 
shall  be  exempt  from  paying  Taxes  shall  vote  for  a  Representative  or 
Representatives  in  Assembly  for  any  County  or  Town  in  this  Province" 
(ibid.,  855).  The  subject  arose,  perhaps,  over  the  poll-tax  levy  which 
was  then  under  discussion.  I  do  not  know  whether  it  was  incorporated 
into  the  act  or  not. 


no     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

of  some  clerk  the  writs  came  out  empowering  the  inhabitants 
to  take  part  in  the  elections.1  In  at  least  one  case  as  Dobbs 
admitted,2  and  perhaps  in  others,  as  the  assembly  claimed,3 
writs  were  even  issued  for  elections  by  the  freeholders  in 
stead  of  by  the  inhabitants.  Some  changes  were  also  made 
in  the  apportionment  of  representatives,  which  the  assembly 
later  said  "  is  a  manifest  infringement  on  the  rights  of  the 
subject,  and  tenders  to  endanger  the  Constitution."  4 

With  such  confusion  in  the  governor's  mind,  and  such 
looseness  in  his  writs,  it  was  but  natural  that  the  elections 

\  should  be  irregular  and  riotous.  The  journals  of  the  suc 
ceeding  assembly  give  abundant  evidence  of  this.  There 
were  contested  elections  in  four  counties ; 5  and  under  the 
governor's  writs  it  was  claimed  that  servants  and  criminals 
might  vote,6  while  the  governor  himself  admitted  that  sailors 

i  and  non-freeholders  had  succeeded  in  electing  a  set  of  men 
different  from  those  who  would  have  been  chosen  by  free 
holder  suffrage.7  The  assembly  so  elected  stood  for  the  old 
constitutional  rights  of  the  assembly  and  people.  They 
seated  a  member  from  the  town  of  Halifax,  who  had  been 
elected  without  a  writ  from  the  governor,  on  the  ground  that 
under  a  clause  in  the  act  of  1715  incorporating  the  town  of 
Bath,  any  town  had  the  right  to  send  a  representative  to  the 
assembly  when  it  numbered  sixty  families  of  inhabitants.8 
They  refused  to  act  until  a  majority  was  present,  in  spite  of 
the  governor's  instructions  which  had  made  fifteen  members 
a  quorum ; 9  and  they  drew  up  a  protest  against  the  recent 
acts  of  the  governor  in  elections,  in  money  matters,  and  in 

1  N.  C.  Col.  Rec.,  VI,  303. 

•Ibid. 

*Ibid.;  and  p.  413. 

*  Ibid.,  301,  412. 

8  Granville,  Anson,  Bertie,  and  Perquimans ;    ibid.,  364,  365,  366,  374. 

9  Ibid.,  303,  413. 
'Ibid.,  303. 

8  For  the  action  of  the  assembly,  the  governor,  and  the  English 
authorities  upon  this  Halifax  case,  see  N.  C.  Col.  Rec.,  VI,  245,  365, 
538-541,  598,  752-3,  983-989,  1006.  The  question  arose  again  in  1773, 
see  ibid.,  IX,  594-596,  600. 

•Ibid.,  VI.,  470. 


The  Suffrage  in  North  Carolina.  in 

relation  to  fees.1  To  them  it  seemed  "  no  longer  a  secret 
that  the  Governor  Intended  to  modell  the  Assembly  for  his 
own  particular  Purposes,"  l  while  the  governor  felt  com 
pelled  to  ask  that  his  hands  be  strengthened  to  oppose  "  a 
republican  spirit  of  Independency  rising  in  this  Colony."  3 

Yet  there^was  common  sense  enough  on  both  sides  to  per 
mit  the  passage  of  a  general  election  law.     A  bill  for  this 
purpose  was  introduced  into  the  lower  house  in  November, 
1760,  during  the  second  session  of  the  assembly,  and  in  two 
weeks  had  passed  both  houses  and  received  the  governor's 
approval.4    //The  act  of  December  3,    I76o,5   restored  thO 
qualification's  for  assemblymen  and  voters  as  they  had  been 
adopted  in  1743 ;   the  voter  again  must  be  twenty-one  years\ 
of  age,  six  months  a  resident  of  the  province,  and  a  free-  ) 
holder  of  fifty  acres  of  land;   while  the  representative  must/ 
be  of  the  same  age,  be  an  inhabitant  for  one  year  and  own 
one  hundred  acres  of  land  in  the  county  for  which  he  was 
elected.  II  The  only  important  change  made  by  the  act  v 
the  abolition  of  the  ballot-box,  and  the  substitution  therefor 
of  voting  "  openly,"  or  viva  voce.    A  fine  was  to  be  imposed 
upon  sheriffs  who  refused  to  take  the  poll  in  this  manner, 
thus  making  the  new  method  compulsory. 

The  last  four  years  of  Dobbs's  administration  were  spent 
in  a  vain  effort  to  protect  the  king's  prerogative  against  the 
encroachments  of  the  assembly,  in  which  he  gained  the  ill- 
will  of  the  province  and  did  not  win  support  from  home.6 
His  successor,  William  Tryon,7  had  the  far  greater  diffi- 

1AT.  C.  Col.  Rec.,  VI,  410-415. 

2  Ibid.,  415. 

8  Ibid.,  279. 

*  Ibid.,  453,  463,  464,  469,  480,  501,  511. 

"Davis,  Laws  (1764),  198-201. 

*The  principal  subject  of  dispute  was  the  old  one  of  a  quorum,  the 
assembly  refusing  to  transact  business  without  a  majority,  while  the 
governor  tried  to  gain  recognition  for  the  quorum  of  fifteen  mentioned 
in  his  instructions  (N.  C.  Col.  Rec.,  VI,  470,  538-541,  596,  983^989,  1006, 
1024).  See  ibid.,  538,  for  severe  rebuke  sent  to  Dobbs  by  Board  of 
Trade  because  of  "  ill  timed  disputes  amongst  the  different  branches 
of  the  Legislature  in  North  Carolina,  upon  Questions  of  meer  specu 
lative  Polity,  too  trivial  in  almost  any  times  to  deserve  consideration." 

T  Commissioned  as  lieutenant-governor  April  26,  1764  (N.  C.  Col 
Rec.,  VI,  1043). 


H2     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

culty  of  the  Regulator  movement  to  contend  with.  In  the 
meantime  although  scarcely  an  election  was  held  that  did 
not  lead  to  contested  seats  in  the  house,1  yet  a  new  election 
law  of  1764  failed  in  the  upper  house.2  In  1768  a  move 
ment  was  started  for  the  election  of  assemblies  triennially, 
and  in  spite  of  rejections  in  the  upper  house,  four  bills  for 
this  purpose  were  introduced  and  passed  in  the  lower  house 
between  1768  and  I774-3  The  assent  of  the  upper  house 
was  gained  in  1771  to  a  supplementary  election  act,  but  this 
was  so  "  replete  with  objections,"  and  "  repugnant  to  the 
British  Statutes,"  4  that  Governor  Tryon  would  not  sign 
it ; 5  and  a  second  attempt  in  the  fall  of  the  same  year  was 
thwarted  in  the  upper  house.6  The  journals,  unfortunately, 
are  silent  upon  those  features  of  the  acts  which  led  to  their 
popularity  in  the  lower  house,  and  which  made  them  repug 
nant  to  the  council  and  governor. 

The  Regulator  movement  furnishes  few  facts  bearing 
upon  the  suffrage,  for  although  the  Regulators  developed 
some  form  of  representative  organization,  yet  very  slight 
reference  is  made  to  the  election  of  the  representatives.  As 
early  as  1766  Orange  County  took  steps  towards  a  perma 
nent  representative  organization ; 7  and  somewhat  later  an 
agreement  is  entered  into  by  the  Regulators  to  "  choose  more 
suitable  men  than  we  have  heretofore  done  for  Burgesses 
and  Vestry  men,"  and  to  settle  differences  among  them 
selves  by  submission  to  "  the  Majority  of  our  Body."  8  A 
regular  organization  of  companies,  chiefs,  and  representa 
tives  appears  to  have  been  in  existence  by  April  4,  1768,  for, 
by  an  agreement  of  that  date,  a  Regulators'  meeting  decided 
to  inspect  the  sheriffs'  and  vestries'  lists  of  taxables  and  ac- 

"See  N.  C.  Col.  Rec.,  VI,  897,  902,  904,  QiQ,  961,  H54b,  1259,  1278; 
VII,  350,  352,  357,  366,  722-725. 

z  Ibid.,  1 1 12,  1 122,  1174,  1186. 

*Ibid.t  VII,  903,  938;  IX,  412,  457,  529,  530,  54O,  713,  7*4,  744,  752, 
798-799,  855,  899. 

•Ibid.,  VIII,  523- 

5  Ibid.,  362,  370,  376,  426,  428,  459,  479- 

9  Ibid.,  IX,  1 10,  156,  168. 

7  Ibid.,  VII,  249-252. 

8  Ibid.,  671. 


The  Suffrage  in  North  Carolina.  113 

counts  of  expenditures,  and  to  meet  on  the  first  Monday  of 
July,  October,  January,  and  April.  These  meetings  were  to 
continue  until  the  "  business  be  completed  to  satisfaction  at 
the  Meeting  House  near  Moses  Teague's  to  which  each  chief 
is  to  send  one  or  more  representatives  from  a  private  meet 
ing  of  his  own  company."  1  Similar  "  conventions"  were 
held  at  other  times,2  and  one  of  the  principal  features  in  Gov 
ernor  Tryon's  proclamation  to  the  Orange  County  men  was 
that  they  should  desist  from  further  meetings  "  either  by 
Verbal  agreement  or  advertisement,"  and  cease  using  the 
titles  of  Regulators  and  Associators.3 

Apart  from  these  elections  among  themselves  the  Regu 
lators  were  interested  in  the  Assembly  elections,  and  among 
the  various  reforms  they  requested,  this  was  placed  first — 
"  That  at  all  elections  each  suffrage  be  given  by  Ticket  & 
Ballot."  4  They  naturally  influenced  the  elections  in  the 
western  counties,5  and  to  counteract  their  influence  Tryon 
erected  the  borough  of  Hillsborough  and  gave  it  the  privi 
lege  of  sending  a  representative  to  the  assembly.6  It  was 
the  inhabitants  of  this  western  county  of  Orange  which  in 
I773  gave  the  following  interesting  instruction7  to  their 
delegates  in  assembly : 

"  We  have  chosen  you  our  Representatives  at  the  next  General  As 
sembly  and  when  we  did  so  we  expected  and  do  still  expect  that  you 
will  speak  our  Sense  in  every  case  when  we  shall  expressly  declare  it, 
or  when  you  can  by  any  other  means  discover  it.  In  all  other  cases  we 
suppose  you  left  to  your  own  discretion  which  is  ever  to  be  directed 
by  the  Good  of  our  Country  in  general  and  of  this  County  in  particular. 
This  is  our  notion  of  the  Duty  of  Representatives,  and  the  Rights  of 
Electors." 

1 N.  C.  Col.  Rec.,  VII,  702-703. 

2  For  the  Regulators  in  general,  see  J.  S.  Bassett,  The  Regulators  of 
North  Carolina,  Report  of  American  Historical  Association  for  1894 
(140-212),  161-170,  172,  183-184. 

*  N.  C.  Col.  Rec.,  VII,  731-732,  793- 

'Ibid.,  VIII,  77- 

8  Ibid.,  VII,  671,  722-726. 

9  Ibid.,  VII,  Prefatory  Notes,  xxiv;    VIII,  216. 
T  Ibid.,  IX,  699- 

8 


114     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

Turning  from  the  county  elections  and  representation,  we 
must  glance  at  the  elections  in  the  boroughs.  In  discussing 
the  suffrage  under  the  proprietors,  a  law  of  1715  was  men 
tioned,  according  to  which  any  town  was  declared  entitled 
to  elect  a  representative  to  the  assembly  when  its  population 
reached  sixty  families.  This  was  the  famous  "  Bath-town 
Act/'  which  occupies  a  large  place  in  the  colonial  corre 
spondence  from  1760.  It  has  also  been  noted  that  a  subse 
quent  act  of  1723  extended  the  suffrage  in  towns  to  the 
tenants  of  houses  of  a  legal  size,  who  paid  taxes  or  to  the 
owners  when  the  houses  were  untenanted.  Under  the  pro 
visions  of  these  acts,  three  towns,  Edenton,  Bath  Town  and 
Newbern,  sent  representatives  to  the  first  assembly  under 
the  royal  government.1  In  1734-35  a  new  town  was  erected 
by  order  of  the  governor  and  council,2  and  in  1739  this  town 
of  Wilmington  was  by  act  of  the  legislature  impowered  to 
send  a  burgess  to  the  assembly,  who  was  to  be  elected  by  the 
tenants  of  houses  in  the  town  or  by  the  owners  of  untenanted 
houses.3 

Yet  a  year  later,  in  an  act  relating  to  Edenton,  and  con 
firming  its  right  to  send  a  representative,  the  assembly  stated 
that  no  person  should  be  allowed  to  vote  for  representative 
unless  he  was  the  owner  of  a  saved  lot  in  the  town,  and  had 
held  it  for  six  months  before  the  election.4 

The  wholesale  disallowance  of  laws  in  1754  and  the  fol- 

1N.  C.  Col.Rec.,V,S7- 

*  Ibid.,  IV,  43. 

"Davis,  Laws  (1751),  99-101.  The  suffrage  provision  is  as  follows: 
"  Every  Tenant  of  any  Brick,  Stone  or  framed  habitable  House  of  the 
Length  of  Twenty  Feet,  and  Sixteen  Feet  wide,  within  the  Bounds  of 
the  said  Town,  who,  at  the  Day  of  Election,  and  for  Three  Months  next 
before,  inhabited  such  House,  shall  be  entitled  to  vote  in  the  Election 
for  the  Representative  of  the  said  Town  to  be  sent  to  the  Generall 
Assembly :  And  in  Case  there  shall  be  no  Tenant  of  such  House  in  the 
said  Town  on  the  Day  of  Election,  qualified  to  vote  as  aforesaid,  that 
then  and  in  such  Case  the  Person  seized  of  such  House,  either  in  Fee- 
Simple  or  Fee-Tail,  or  for  Term  of  Life,  shall  be  entitled  to  vote  for 
the  Representative  aforesaid." 

*  Ibid.,  103-108.    To  save  a  lot  the  purchaser  must,  within  two  years 
after  purchasing,  erect  "  a  good  substantial,   Brick,   Stone  or  framed 


The  Suffrage  in  North  Carolina.  115 

lowing  years  resulted  in  the  repeal  of  the  acts  of  1739  and 
1740  respecting  Wilmington  and  Edenton,  but  they  left  un 
touched  the  more  important  laws  of  1715  and  1723,  which 
granted  representation  to  towns  when  they  obtained  a  popu 
lation  of  sixty  families  and  regulated  the  elections  in  such 
towns.  Wilmington,  Newbern,  Edenton,  and  Brunswick 
later  received  charters  from  the  governor  granting  them  the 
right  to  elect  a  representative,1  but  Bath  never  took  out  a 
new  charter,  as  the  act  establishing  it  had  not  been  repealed. 
Under  the  provisions  of  the  Bath-town  act  of  1715  other 
towns  claimed  the  right  to  send  a  representative  when  they 
obtained  the  necessary  population;  and  in  1760  Halifax  did 
not  even  wait  for  the  governor's  writ,  but  elected  a  burgess, 
who,  after  investigation  of  the  claims  of  Halifax  by  the 
assembly,  was  admitted  to  a  seat.2  Dobbs  later  confirmed 
this  right  by  charter,3  and  six  towns  thus  had  the  right  to 
elect  burgesses.  Later,  three  more  towns,  Campbelton,  Hills- 
borough,  and  Salisbury,  received  the  same  right;  Tar- 
borough  attempted  to  exercise  the  privilege,  and  the  Board 
of  Trade  recommended  that  Beaufort  be  given  a  representa 
tive. 

In  spite  of  the  frequent  requests  of  the  governors,  the 
Board  of  Trade  appears  loath  to  advise  the  repeal  of  the 
Bath-town  act  of  1715.  In  1762  they  merely  threaten  to  so 
advise  the  king  if  the  assembly  persist  in  the  "  undutiful  & 
unreasonable  claims"  in  cases  like  that  of  Halifax.4  Later 
in  1773,  they  upheld  the  assembly  in  refusing  a  seat  to  a 
person  elected  from  the  lately  chartered  town  of  Tar- 
borough,  because  the  town  did  not  possess  the  number  of 
inhabitants  required  by  the  act  of  1715 ; 5  and,  on  the  other 


habitable  House,  not  of  less  Dimensions  than  Twenty  Feet  long,  Fifteen 
Feet  in  Wedth,  and  Eight  Feet  in  Height,  between  the  first  Floor  and 
the  Joists." 
*N.  C.  Col.  Rec.,  VI,  228-229,  331,  333- 

2  Ibid.,  245,  365.     The  Board  of  Trade  resolved  that  the  claim  of 
Halifax  was   "unconstitutional   and  not   warranted  by  any   authority 
whatever"  (ibid.,  752). 

3  Ibid.,  245,  333. 

*  Ibid.,  VI,  752. 

•  Ibid.,  IX,  348,  746-747,  989- 


n6     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

hand,  despite  the  expressed  opinion  of  Governor  Martin 
that  the  "  present  Bulk"  of  the  assembly  made  it  embar 
rassing,  the  lords  directed  him  to  grant  a  charter  to  Beau 
fort,  which  had  petitioned  for  a  burgess  because  its  popula 
tion  consisted  of  over  sixty  families.1  The  action  of  the 
English  authorities  appears  much  more  reasonable  than  that 
of  the  governors;  for  the  latter,  forced  by  the  necessities  of 
colonial  politics,  granted  charters  to  insignificant  villages,2 
while  refusing  it  to  larger  places.3 

There  appears  to  have  been  no  general  suffrage  qualifi 
cation  applicable  to  all  these  towns.  The  laws  of  1715  and 
1723  had  given  the  franchise  to  householders_ejtliejLjb)Llease 
orHSy  freehold*  tenure,  but^th is  was "'not' 'uniformly  retained. 
ft~was  extended  to  Brunswick  by  the  general  election  law  of 
1760;*  and  yet  a  few  months  later  the  elections  in  another 
town,  Newbern,  were  said  to  be  by  the  freeholders  alone,5 
and  in  Hillsborough,  by  the  charter  of  1770,  the  same  re 
striction  was  made.6  Yet  in  Campbelton 7  and  in  Tar- 
borough  the  electors  are  merely  "  the  inhabitants."  8  In 
Campbelton  especially,  certain  freeholders  charged  that  their 
(charter  of  1765  gave  "power  to  all  persons  whom  accident 
'  or  design  shall  bring  within  two  miles  of  the  Court-house  of 
Campbelton,  on  the  day  appointed  for  the  Election  of  a  Mem 
ber  to  give  their  suffrages ;  altho'  their  proper  place  of  resi 
dence  be  far  out  of  the  limits  of  the  said  Town,  and  although 
they  have  no  property  in  that  or  any  other  place  to  become 

*N.  C.  Col.  Rec.,  IX,  636,  640-641,  682. 

2  Both  Hillsborough  and  Tarborough  were  smaller  in  size  than  the 
population  fixed  by  the  act  of  1715.  The  first  retained  while  the  latter 
lost  its  representative. 

8  Governor  Tryon,  in  1767,  wrote,  "  The  several  towns  in  this  province 
are  created  by  act  of  Assembly  but  have  no  right  upon  their  creation 
to  send  members  to  the  Assembly,  nor  doth  that  right  by  law  com 
mence  until  there  be  sixty  families  residing  in  the  town,  at  which  time 
they  may  apply  [to  the  governor],  and  are  entitled  to  a  writ  for  electing 
a  representative  in  the  Assembly"  (N.  C.  Col.  Rec.,  VII,  473). 

4  Davis,  Laws  (1764),  201. 

5  N.  C.  Col.  Rec.,  VI,  672. 
•Ibid.,  VIII,  216. 
'Ibid.,  IX,  80. 

*  Ibid.,  746.    Cf.  varying  suffrage  in  English  boroughs,  ante,  Ch.  I. 


The  Suffrage  in  North  Carolina.  117 

the  subject  of  representation."  1  Thus  the  elections  were 
thrown  into  "  the  Hands  of  transient  persons,  Boatmen 
Waggoners  and  other  Laborers,"  and  taken  "  from  their 
Employers,  who  are  principally  interested  in  securing  or 
improving  from  their  right  of  Representation,  the  property 
of  the  Town."  Upon  this  representation  the  governor  and 
council  granted  the  town  a  new  charter  limiting  the  suffrage 
to  freeholders.2  There  was  no  more  uniformity  in  the  elec 
tion  provisions  of  these  charters  than  there  was  method  in 
erecting  the  towns  or  reason  for  the  granting  of  borough  rep 
resentation.3  Apparently  the  ignorance  or  fancy^or  political 
environment  of  the  gov^n^rs  ^eteriniEed^the  town  suffrage. 
The  town  elections,  perhaps  on  account  of  the  absence  of 
uniformity  in  the  suffrage  provisions,  were  more  turbulent 
than  those  in  the  counties,  and  the  number  of  contested  cases 
is  proportionally  greater  than  those  arising  from  county  elec 
tions.4 

North  Carolina  had  few  local  officers  of  an  elective  nature. 
Mention  has  already  been  made  of  the  popular  triple  nomi 
nation  of  candidates  for  the  office  of  county  register,  which, 
beginning  in  1715  or  before  that  year,  lasted  down  to  the 
Revolution.5  Another  group  of  elective  officials  were  the 
commissioners  of  some  of  the  towns.  The  early  laws  organ 
izing  towns  placed  the  control  of  town  matters  in  the  hands 
of  a  board  of  commissioners,  whose  numbers  were  kept  up 
either  by  appointments  of  the  governor  6  or  of  the  neighbor 
ing  county  court,7  or  elections  by  themselves.8  Many  of  the 

1N.  C.  Col  Rec.,  IX,  79. 

3  Ibid.,  79-81,  274. 

8  A  number  of  other  towns  were  erected  from  time  to  time,  but  none 
of  these  ever  obtained  a  population  sufficient  to  give  it  a  representative. 
See  Davis,  Laws  (1751),  62-65,  92-94;  (1764),  7,  n,  28,  32;  (1773),  506, 
530,  556. 

4  Out  of  thirty-six   contested  election  cases  noticed  in  the   records 
between  the  years  1731-1774,  fifteen  arose  in  the  towns  and  twenty-one 
in  the  counties.    Throughout  the  whole  period  there  were  three  or  four 
times  as  many  counties  as  towns   (e.g.,  1767,  eight  towns  and  twenty- 
nine  counties,  Col.  Rec.,  VII,  473)- 

8  See  ante,  p.  94. 

'  E.g.,  Davis,  Laws  (1751),  100. 

'E.g.,  ibid.,  62-65,  92-94-  'E-8->  ibid->  2I°- 


n8     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

later  acts  erected  similar  self-perpetuating  bodies,1  but  in  at 
least  two  cases  provision  was  made  for  the  election  of  the 
commissioners  by  popular  vote.  The  first  town  to  receive 
this  privilege,  apparently,  was  Wilmington,  where,  by  an 
act  of  1740,  the  electors  qualified  to  vote  for  an  assembly 
man  were  impowered  to  elect  annually  five  persons  from 
whom  the  governor  would  choose  three  to  serve  as  town 
commissioners  for  the  ensuing  year.2  In  1745  all  the  five 
elected  were  to  serve ;  3  and  the  same  privilege  was  extended 
to  Newbern  in  1748,*  where  previously  a  close  corporation 
had  existed.  These  rights  were  restored  by  the  assembly 
in  1756,  after  the  wholesale  repeal  of  town  and  county  acts 
two  years  earlier ;  5  but  no  evidence  has  been  found  to  show 
that  any  other  towns  were  granted  like  privileges. 

The  North  Carolina  vestry  from  1715  to  1741  was  a  close 
corporation  usually  appointed  in  the  act  erecting  the  parish,6 
and  subsequently  filling  vacancies  in  their  own  number.  But 
in  the  latter  year  an  act  was  passed  for  the  election  of  vestry 
men  every  two  years  by  the  inhabiting  freeholders  of  every 
parish.7  This  act  was  later  amended  to  restrict  the  parish 
suffrage  to  those  qualified  to  vote  for  representatives  and  to 
require  the  use  of  the  ballot  in  such  elections.8  The  Crown 
disallowed  the  vestry  act  in  1754,°  and  thereafter,  until  1764 
there  was  no  permanent  basis  for  the  parish  system.  In 
1758  an  attempt  was  made  to  erect  "  select"  vestries,  or  close 
corporations,  but  this  was  rejected  by  the  lower  house.10  An 
act  of  1760  was  disallowed  by  the  English  government,  and 
the  church  thrown  into  the  greatest  confusion.11  At  last  a 

lE.g.,  Davis,  Laws  (1773),  47O,  506,  530,  556. 

2  Davis,  Laws  (i750>  H5- 

*  Ibid.,  204-208.  *  Ibid.,  279. 

5  Davis,  Laws  (1764),  93-98,  98-105.  Edenton  had  a  close  corporation 
of  trustees  (ibid.,  105-111).  For  later  change  in  Wilmington,  see 
Davis,  Laws  (1773),  507. 

"Davis,  Laws  (1751).  So,  65,  67. 

'Ibid.,  157. 

"In  1751 ;   Davis,  Laws  (1751),  352. 

•N.  C.  Col.  Rec.,  V,  116. 

10  Ibid.,  V,  1063,  1080. 

11  See  letters  of  the  ministers,  ibid.,  VI,  978,  990,  994,  999. 


The  Suffrage  in  North  Carolina.  119 

law  was  passed  in  1764  which  appears  to  have  been  satisfac 
tory  to  the  Bishop  of  London  and  the  British  government. 
This  act 1  provided  for  a  triennial  election  of  vestrymen  by 
those  who  had  within  the  parish  fifty  acres  of  land  or  a 
town  lot  saved  according  to  law.  Votes  were  to  "  be  given 
openly,"  not  by  ballot,  and  the  suffrage  was  compulsory : 

"  Every  Person  qualified  to  vote  for  Vestrymen  in  their  respective 
Parishes  (the  People  called  Quakers  excepted)  is  hereby  required  to 
attend,  and  give  his  Vote  at  the  Election  of  Vestrymen,  in  Manner 
herein  before  directed,  unless  prevented  by  some  bodily  Infirmity  or 
legal  Disability,  under  the  Penalty  of  Twenty  Shillings,  Proclamation 
Money."  2 

A  fine  was  also  to  be  imposed  upon  dissenters  who  refused 
to  take  the  oath  of  vestrymen  after  they  had  been  elected.3 

Parish  elections  in  North  Carolina  differed  from  those  in 
South  Carolina  in  the  fact  that  the  first  colony  required  all 
freeholders  possessing  the  requisite  fifty  acres  both  to  vote 
and  to  take  office  if  elected,  or  to  pay  relatively  heavy  penal 
ties  for  neglect;  while  her  southern  neighbor  restricted  the 
suffrage  in  such  elections  to  members  of  the  Church  of  Eng 
land.  They  differed  from  those  in  Maryland  and  Virginia 
in  that  the  dissenting  class  was  large  in  numbers,  strong  in 
influence,  and  was  aided  by  a  large  portion  of  the  community 
who  did  not  care  to  pay  taxes  for  any  church.  Under  such 
circumstances  we  need  not  wonder  that  great  irregularities 
took  place  at  the  parish  elections.  The  absence  of  a  vestry 
act  for  several  years  made  the  weak  established  church  still 
weaker,  and  under  the  new  law  of  1764  the  conditions  be 
came  worse  rather  than  better.  On  some  occasions  dissent 
ers  were  purposely  elected  to  prevent  the  organization  of  a 
vestry  and  the  collection  of  tithes,4  and  in  1771  an  act  was 

1  Davis,  Laws  (1773),  304- 

2  For  comment  upon  this  act,  see  S.  B.  Weeks,  Church  and  State  in 
North  Carolina,  J.  H.  U.  Studies,  XI,  36-38. 

8  It  is  interesting  to  notice  that  the  compulsory  voting  clause  was  in 
sisted  upon  by  the  lower  house  after  the  upper  house  had  voted  to 
expunge  it  (N.  C.  Col.  Rec.,  VI,  1107-1109). 

4  N.  C.  Col.  Rec.,  VIII,  180,  202-210,  503. 


I2O     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

passed  which  provided  for  the  collection  of  parish  taxes  even 
if  there  was  no  vestry  in  the  parish.1 

The  suffrage  provisions  in  North  Carolina  may  now  be 
summarized.  During  the  first  fifty  years  no  definite  pro 
vision  for  the  suffrage  has  been  found,  and  owing  to  the 
unsettled  political  conditions  the  elections  must  often  have 
been  farcical  if  not  actually  riotous.  Formal  and  regular 
.elections  may  have  been  held  after  1715,  in  which  year  the 
suffrage  was  granted  to  all  white  tax-paying  free  men 
over  twenty-one  years  of  age.  This  provision  was  retained 
during  the  remainder  of  the  proprietary  period.  The  instruc 
tions  to  the  royal  governors  conflicted  with  this  wide  fran 
chise,  and  the  governors  attempted  to  make  the  colonial 
practice  square  with  their  orders.  Under  Burrington  the 
contest  was  closely  associated  with  the  effort  on  the  part  of 
the  governor  to  erect  new  precincts;  and  under  Johnston 
the  assembly  passed  a  law  limiting  the  suffrage  to  freehold 
ers  of  fifty  acres  who  had  resided  six  months  in  the  province, 
but  no  longer  excluded  negroes.  With  the  addition  of  an 
age  requirement  of  twenty-one  years,  this  qualification  re 
mained  unchanged  until  the  Revolution.  In  the  meantime 
a  wider  suffrage  was  granted  in  some  towns,  where  tenants 
of  houses  could  .vote.  But  the  whole  suffrage  and  represen 
tative  system  was  overthrown  by  the  repeal  of  such  acts  in 
1754.  The  right  of  representation  was  thereafter  restored 
by  the  charters  of  the  governors,  who  in  some  cases  also  de 
fined  the  suffrage  qualifications.  The  act  of  1760  restored 
the  old  qualifications  for  voters  in  the  counties,  but  abolished  i 
the  previous  ballot  voting  and  substituted  the  viva  voce  I 
lethod.  In  the  towns  there  appear  to  have  been  some 
variations  in  the  qualifications  for  voters,  and  the  borough 
franchise  was,  without  doubt,  used  by  the  governors  to  fur 
ther  their  own  political  plans.  Of  local  elections  there  were 
lose  for  registers,  town  commissioners,  and  vestrymen, 
none  of  which  appears  to  have  varied  materially  from  the 
assembly  elections.  The  most  curious  feature  of  the  suffrage 
is  that  compelling  qualified  freeholders,  even  dissenters,  to 
take  part  in  the  parish  elections.  Another  remarkable  pro 
vision  is  the  early  exclusion  of  negroes,  and  the  subsequent 

1  Davis,  Laws  (1771),  498. 


The  Suffrage  in  North  Carolina.  121 

granting  of  the  franchise  to  them.  North  Carolina  is  the 
jonly  colony  south  of  Maryland  which  did  not  forbid  their 
[voting  at  the  time  of  the  Revolution.  Throughout  the  royal 
period  the  suffrage  question  is  most  intimately  connected 
with  the  attempt  of  the  governors  to  win  control  of  the  rep 
resentative  system  and  direct  the  legislation  of  the  assembly. 
This  connection  is  seen  in  1731  in  the  contest  over  the  erec 
tion  of  new  precincts,  in  1746  over  the  subject  of  the 
quorum,  in  1754-1756  in  the  repeal  of  election  acts,  in  1760 
in  the  question  of  a  quorum  and  the  right  of  town  represen 
tation,  and  during  the  later  years  in  the  arbitrary  erection 
of  Hillsborough  and  Tarborough  into  towns  with  right  of 
representation.  The  whole  force  of  the  English  government 
is  usually  exerted  in  favor  of  the  governors  in  these  strug 
gles.  Until  the  days  of  the  repressive  and  retaliatory  meas 
ures  just  preceding  the  Revolution,  no  colony  felt  so  heavily 
the  hand  of  British  authority,  or  saw  more  of  its  popular 
legislation  mutilated  by  the  English  veto-power,  than  did  the 
province  of  North  Carolina. 


CHAPTER    V. 
THE  SUFFRAGE  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA. 

The  Carolina  proprietors  under  the  royal  grants  of  1663 
and  1665  did  not  intend  keeping  their  vast  domain  under  one 
government.  The  struggling  Albermarle  settlement  in  the 
North  was  placed  under  the  tutelage  of  Governor  Berkeley, 
of  Virginia,  one  of  the  eight  proprietors  who  was  empowered 
to  appoint  one  or  two  governors  for  Carolina ; l  later  the  un 
successful  Cape  Fear  settlement  was  erected  into  an  inde 
pendent  colony ; 2  and  the  proprietors  apparently  entertained 
the  idea  of  establishing  eight  distinct  counties,  one  for  each 
proprietor,  possessing  separate  and  almost  independent  gov 
ernments.3  This  early  policy  later  gave  way  to  an  attempt 
to  organize  a  general  provincial  government  under  the  elab 
orate  provisions  of  the  Fundamental  Constitutions;  but  in 
the  same  month,  July,  1669,  tnat  this  frame  was  adopted 
by  the  proprietors,  the  same  men  were  affixing  their  seals  to 
documents  which  would  create  still  another  colony  within 
their  territory,  and  make  a  united  province  almost  an  im 
possibility.  Thus  at  first  as  a  result  of  conscious  policy  and 
later  as  the  outcome  of  practical  conditions,  the  Carolina 
lands  tended  to  divide  into  distinct  settlements.  Several 
abortive  attempts  at  independent  colonies  were  made,  and  at 
last  only  two  distinct  parts  of  the  province  were  recognized, 
— the  Albermarle  settlement,  usually  spoken  of  as  "  Alber 
marle  County ;"  and  "  that  parte  of  the  Province  of  Caro 
lina  that  lyeth  southward  and  westward  of  Cape  Feare."  4 

In  July,  1669,  when  instructions  were  drawn  up  for  the 
governor  and  council  of  the  proposed  colony  at  Port  Royal 
(South  Carolina),  it  was  admitted  that  the  number  of  peo- 

*N.  C.  Col.  Records,  I,  48. 

8  Ibid.,  75-92. 

*  Ibid.,  Prefatory  Notes,  pp.  xiv-xv. 

4  This  was  for  many  years  the  only  legal  name  of  South  Carolina,  and 
was  continually  used  in  the  enacting  clauses  of  the  laws ;  see  Statutes 
at  Large  of  South  Carolina,  II,  13,  etc. 

122 


The  Suffrage  in  South  Carolina.  123 

pie  in  Carolina  was  too  small  to  put  in  force  the  "  Grand 
Model,"  1  and  accordingly  a  modified  and  temporary  form  of 
government  was  ordained  by  the  proprietors.  The  governor 
and  five  deputies  had  been  appointed  in  England,  and  upon 
arriving  in  the  colony  these  were  to  be  joined  by  five  more 
elected  by  the  people. 

"  As  soone  as  you  arrive  at  Port  Royall  you  are  to  summon  all  ye 
freemen  that  are  in  ye  Collony,  and  require  them  to  elect  five  persons, 
who  being  joyned  to  ye  five  deputed  by  ye  respective  Propriet™,  are  to 
be  ye  Counsel!  wth  whose  advice  &  consent,  or  at  least  sixe  of  them, 
all  being  summoned,  you  are  to  governe  according  to  the  Limitations 
&  Instruccons  following,  observeing  what  cann  at  present  be  putt  in 
practice  of  our  fundamentall  Constitutions  &  forme  of  Governmt."  • 

The  ten  councillors  and  the  governor  were  to  be  assisted  in 
the  making  of  laws  by  deputies  also  elected  by  popular 
choice : 

"  you  are  to  sumon  ye  freehoulders  of  ye  Collony  &  require  ym  in  our 
names  to  elect  twenty  persons,  wch.  together  wth  or  [our]  Deputys  for 
ye  present  are  to  be  yr  Parliament,  by  &  wth  whose  consent,  or  ye 
maior  parte  of  them,  you  are  to  make  such  laws  as  you  shall  from  time 
to  time  finde  necessary.'*  * 

The  instructions  promised  one  hundred  and  fifty  acres  of 
land  to  every  freeman  who  settled  before  March  25,  1670, 
and  the  same  amount  to  the  freemen  for  each  male  servant 
they  brought  out  to  the  colony ;  one  hundred  acres  for  each 
woman-servant  or  male-servant  under  sixteen  years  of  age ; 
and  promised  one  hundred  acres  to  every  servant  upon  the 
expiration  of  his  term  of  service.  Smaller  amounts  were 
to  be  given  to  those  coming  later,  but  all  persons  receiving 
land  must  take  an  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  king,  and  of 
fidelity  and  submission  to  the  proprietors  and  to  their  Fun 
damental  Constitutions.  A  quit-rent  of  one  penny  an  acre 

1  The  suffrage  provisions  of  the  royal  charters  and  the  fundamental 
constitutions  have  been  discussed  under  the  heading  of  North  Carolina, 
and  will  be  mentioned  here  only  incidentally. 

*  Rivers,  A  Sketch  of  the  History  of  South  Carolina  to  the  Close  of 
the  Proprietary  Government  by  the  Revolution  of  17/9,  Appendix,  347. 

8  Ibid.,  348. 


124     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

was  reserved  upon  all  lands  thus  granted,  to  be  paid  annu 
ally  after  September  29,  1689. 

The  party  of  emigrants  left  England  in  August,  1669* 
and  at  the  Bermudas  a  blank  commission  for  governor  was 
filled  in  with  the  name  of  William  Sayle,  and  this  person 
took  charge  of  the  expedition  during  the  days  of  settlement.2 
When  the  colonists  arrived  at  Port  Royal,  the  first  election, 
in  accordance  with  the  instructions,  was  held  for  the  selection 
of  five  councillors.  According  to  the  records,  the  governor 
"  Summoned  all  the  ffreemen,  &  there  to  Elect  &  choose  five 
men  to  bee  of  the  Councill;"  and  after  five  had  been  chosen, 
a  certain  William  Owen  "  alwaies  itching  to  be  in  Author 
ity,"  questioned  the  legality  of  the  election,  but  "  where- 
vpon  the  s'd  ffreeholdrs  or  the  major  p'te  of  them,  mett  a 
second  tyme,  &  confirmed  their  former  Election,  by  sub- 
scribeing  of  their  sev'rall  names."  3 

This  election,  the  first  held  in  South  Carolina,  is  of  in 
terest  because  it  was  held  so  early  in  the  history  of  the 
settlement;  indeed,  before  the  ships  had  reached  Charleston 
harbor,  and  while  temporarily  lying  in  Port  Royal,  the  men 
of  the  fleet  were  called  together.  It  is  to  be  noted  also  that 
here,  as  in  the  instructions,  the  words  freeman  and  free 
holder  are  used  interchangeably.  Section  i  of  the  instruc 
tions  above  quoted  makes  the  election  of  councillors  by  the 
freemen;  while  Section  8  names  freeholders  as  electors  of 
members  of  the  parliament.  So  in  the  account  of  this  first 
election  the  voters  are  spoken  of  as  "  ffreemen"  and  as 
"  freeholders."  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  electors, 
who  did  not  number  many  over  a  score,4  were  simply  the 
free  men  of  the  expedition,  since  of  freeholders  there  were  as 
yet  none,  as  the  place  of  settlement  was  not  yet  reached,  and 
no  definite  assignments  of  land  had  been  made.  The  free 
men  under  the  instructions  were  potential  freeholders,  but 

1  McCrady,  History  of  South  Carolina  under  the  Proprietary  Govern 
ment,  120  (quoted  hereafter  as  McCrady,  I). 

1  Ibid.,  I,  124. 

1  The  Council  writing  to  the  Proprietors,  March  21,  1670-71 ;  Shaftes- 
bury  Papers,  Collections  of  South  Carolina  Historical  Society,  V,  291 ; 
Charleston  Year-Book,  1883,  371. 

4  Collections  S.  C.  Hist.  Soc.,  V,  203,  292. 


The  Suffrage  in  South  Carolina.  125 

they  were  not  actual  landholders  before  the  land  was  reached 
or  apportioned. 

After  reaching  Charleston  and  beginning  the  settlement, 
the  colonists  were  apparently  too  much  engrossed  in  their 
own  affairs  to  think  of  political  organization,  and  it  was 
not  until  three  months  had  passed  that  the  governor  and 
council  determined  to  issue  certain  ordinances  restraining 
the  profane  violation  of  the  Sabbath  and  "  other  grand 
abuses."  1 

This  determination  was  reached  on  July  4,  1670,  and  on 
that  day,  or  shortly  afterwards,  the  first  assembly,  although 
an  irregular  one,  was  elected.  After  seriously  considering 
the  abuses  and  the  manner  of  redressing  them,  "  and  finding 
that  the  Number  of  ffreehouldrs  in  the  Collony  nott  neere 
sufficient  to  Electe  a  Parliam1 ;  and  the  s'd  late  Gov'nor,  by  & 
wth  the  advice  &  consent  of  vs  his  Councell,  did  make  such 
orders  as  wee  did  think  convenient  to  suppress  the  same, 
vpon  wch  the  s'd  Gov'nor  did  Sum'ons  all  the  People  to 
heare  the  said  Orders,  all  the  s'd  ffreemen  consenting  there- 
vnto  the  s'd  Gov'nor  &  Councell  caused  the  s'd  orderes  to  bee 
published."  2  But  this  method  of  promulgating  laws  was 
opposed  by  that  William  Owen  who  had  objected  to  the  elec 
tion  of  councillors  at  Port  Royal,  and  who  was  "  willing  to 
doe  anything,  though  ever  soe  ill  in  itt  selfe,  rather  then  not 
to  apeare,  to  bee  a  man  of  acc'on."  Owen  argued  that  no 
such  orders  could  be  made  without  the  consent  of  a  parlia 
ment  elected  according  to  the  instructions.  He  appears  at 
first  to  have  impressed  this  opinion  upon  the  governor,  for 
the  latter  evidently  permitted  an  election  to  take  place.3 
Owen  directed  the  election,  and  wrote  with  his  own  hand 
the  list  of  twenty  members  of  parliament,  and  so  controlled 
the  choice  that  it  was  said  he  moved  "  all  the  rest  of  the 
ffreemen,"  "  in  another  spheere  then  their  owne."  4  Owen's 
influence  was  of  short  duration;  the  council  prevented  the 
governor  from  recognizing  the  parliament,  and  the  repre 
sentatives  "  without  any  farthere  notice  takinge  of  the  s'd 

1  Coll.  S.  C.  Hist.  Soc.t  V,  291. 

2  Ibid.,  292. 

*  Ibid.,  176-177,  203. 

'Ibid.,  292;   Charleston  Year-Book,  1883,  375. 


126     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

will'm  Owen,  or  their  Elec'on  into  dignity  (as  the  s'd  Owen 
p' waded  them  itt  would  bee)  lefte  the  s'd  Owen  &  his  Paper, 
&  followed  their  own  Labours,  wch  indeed  neerely  concerned 
them  &  vs  to."  l 

Owen's  factious  opposition  to  the  ordinances  of  the  gov 
ernor  had  a  legal  basis  in  the  fact  that  no  ordinance  power 
was  delegated  to  the  governor  and  council  by  their  instruc 
tions;  and  consequently  the  responsibility  for  the  quarrels 
in  the  colony  must  be  laid  not  solely  at  the  door  of  William 
Owen,  but  also  upon  the  neglect  of  the  proprietors,  and  their 
anxiety  to  establish  the  parliament,  council,  and  other  forms 
of  the  Fundamental  Constitutions.2  The  most  practical 
method  of  legislation  was  that  which  the  governor  and  coun 
cil  had  adopted, — the  submission  of  their  ordinances  to  the 
approval  of  a  general  meeting  of  the  freemen. 

Upon  the  death  of  Governor  Sayle  in  March,  1670-71, 
Joseph  West  was  chosen  governor  by  the  council,  after 
Sayle  had  designated  him  as  successor.3  During  the  year 
that  the  colonists  had  been  in  the  colony  their  numbers  had 
been  considerably  increased,  and  newcomers  were  frequently 
arriving.  Accordingly,  a  few  days  after  the  election  of  Gov 
ernor  West,  he  called  together  the  "  Antient  ffreehoulders" 
and  "  the  New  ffree  men,"  and  in  a  general  meeting  at  the 
storehouse  proposed  certain  ordinances  to  them.4  Owen 
again  demanded  an  election  of  a  parliament,  although  he 
himself  admits  that  there  were  only  between  forty  and  fifty 
freeholders.5  According  to  his  account,  the  people  unani 
mously  stood  by  the  lords'  instructions,  that  laws  "  were  to 
be  framed  by  20  persons  freehouldrs  in  the  nature  of  a  par- 
lemV  But  the  governor  replied  that  the  time  was  "  some 
what  unseasonable,"  and  that  he  intended  calling  a  parlia 
ment  when  opportunity  served,  or  the  necessity  for  the  mak 
ing  of  laws  required  it.  Ten  days  later,  however,  in  writ 
ing  to  the  proprietors,  the  governor  and  council  say  there  is 

1  The  Council  to  the  Proprietors,  ibid.;    also  West  to  Lord  Ashleyv 
Coll.  S.  C.  Hist.  Soc.,  V,  203. 

2  McCrady,  I,  133. 
'Ibid.,  138. 

4  Coll.  S.  C.  Hist.  Soc.,  V,  293- 
6  Ibid.,  302: 


The  Suffrage  in  South  Carolina.  127 

"  noe  great  necessity  att  p^sent  of  a  Parliamt  our  tyme  being 
well  imployed,  if  wee  cann  imploy  it  well,  in  Planting  & 
other  necessary  works  that  lyeth  vpon  vs."  1  Sir  John  Yea- 
mans  claimed  also  that  West  feared  a  parliament  would 
question  too  closely  his  actions  or  the  manner  of  his  elec 
tion.2  The  desired  representative  body  was  not  granted, 
and  the  ordinances  of  the  governor  and  council  were  en 
forced. 

But  the  proprietors  in  England  were  desirous  of  getting 
a  parliament  as  soon  as  possible,  even  while  the  numbers  of 
the  colonists  were  so  insignificant.  In  May,  1671,  the  pro 
prietors  sent  instructions  to  the  "  Governor  and  Council  of 
Ashley  River"  directing  them  "  within  thirty  days  after  re- 
ceit  hereof  to  summon  ye  Freeholders  of  ye  Plantation,  & 
require  them  in  our  names  to  elect  20  persons  who,  togeather 
with  our  Deputys  as  our  Representatives,  for  ye  present  are 
to  be  your  Parliamt."  3  The  governor  was  required  to  call 
a  parliament  in  this  manner  every  two  years,  and  as  much 
oftener  as  the  state  of  affairs  in  the  plantation  should  re 
quire.  The  parliament  in  each  case  was  to  choose  five  of  its 
members  to  act  as  councillors  with  the  five  deputies  of  the 
proprietors.  These  mandatory  instructions  could  not  have 
reached  the  colony  before  July  8,  and  so  we  must  give  Gov 
ernor  West  the  credit  of  calling  for  an  election  of  parlia 
ment  members  upon  his  own  volition.  In  March  the  gov 
ernor  had  said  there  was  no  necessity  for  a  parliament,  but 
by  July  "  more  people  being  now  arrived,"  he  summoned 
"  all  the  ffreemen"  and  required  them  to  elect  twenty  per 
sons  to  be  members  of  the  parliament.  The  election,  com 
pleted  three  days  later,  was  not  managed  altogether  peace 
ably,  and  Sir  John  Yeamans,  who  soon  was  to  become  gov 
ernor  himself,  advised  the  voters  "  in  all  elections  to  choose 
such  as  will  stand  at  the  greatest  distance  from  the 
Gou'nor."  4 

The  parliament  so  elected  on  July  1 1  was  the  first  legal 
representative  body  in  South  Carolina.  It  proved  to  be 

1  Coll.  S.  C.  Hist.  Soc.,  V,  295. 

a  Ibid.,  349. 

*Ibid.,  322;    Rivers,  Sketch,  Appendix,  366. 

•Ibid.,  337-338,  354- 


128     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

greatly  in  sympathy  with  Yeamans,  and  at  once  began  to 
cast  doubts  upon  the  powers  of  the  council  and  the  legality 
of  the  governor's  election.  The  details  of  this  contest  do 
not  concern  us  here,  but  it  is  remarkable  that  the  proprietors 
in  England  decided  upon  Yeamans  for  governor  at  almost 
the  same  time  that  he  was  strenuously  opposing  Governor 
West  in  Charleston.1  Yeamans's  commission  and  instruc 
tions  did  not  reach  him  until  the  spring  of  1672,  and  only 
on  April  19  was  he  proclaimed  governor.2  On  that  day, 
"  regard  being  had  to  the  conveniency  of  the  Freemen  now 
assembled  together  in  this  Towne,"  a  proclamation  was 
issued  "  to  dissolve  all  Parliaments  &  Parliamentary  Con 
ventions  heretofore  had  or  made  in  this  Province"  and  re 
quiring  "  all  the  freeholders  in  this  Province  to  come  before 
the  Grand  Councill  at  Charles  Towne"  on  the  following  day 
to  elect  a  parliament.  Accordingly,  on  April  20,  "  came  the 
Freemen  &c  at  Charles  Towne,  and  having  then  made  their 
election,"  they  presented  the  names  of  the  twenty  members 
of  the  parliament  to  the  governor  and  the  proprietary  depu 
ties.  Immediately  "  the  said  Parliament  &c  then  and  there 
out  of  themselves  did  elect  five  persons"  to  be  joined  with 
the  proprietors'  deputies  as  a  "  Grand  Councill."  3 

Thus  did  the  proprietors,  "  fond  of  their  new  form  of 
government,"  4  lay  the  foundations  for  republican  govern 
ment,  while  they  had  in  mind  only  the  final  establishment  of 
their  aristocratic  constitutions.  All  of  these  provisions  for 
government  were  accounted  temporary,  and  they  should 
soon  give  place  to  the  elaborate  requirements  of  the  "  Grand 
Model."  As  early  as  June  21,  1672,  steps  were  taken  for 
the  incorporation  of  the  "  nobillity"  into  the  legislature,  and 
the  temporary  laws  of  that  date  provided  that  "  the  Parlia 
ment  shall  consist  of  ye  Governor,  ye  Deputys  of  the  Lords 
Proprietors,  the  Nobillity  and  twenty  chosen  by  the  Free- 
houlders."  5  In  spite  of  the  efforts  of  the  proprietors,  their 

xMcCrady,  I,  158. 

*  Coll.  S.  C.  Hist.  Soc.,  V,  390. 

3  Ibid.,  390 ;   Rivers,  Sketch,  Appendix,  378. 

*  An  Historical  Account  of  the  Rise  and  Progress  of  the  Colonies  of 
South  Carolina  and  Georgia  (Alexander  Hewatt),  London,  1729,  I,  60. 

8  Coll.  S.  C.  Hist.  Soc.,  V,  405 ;    Rivers,  Sketch,  Appendix,  355. 


The  Suffrage  in  South  Carolina.  129 

aristocracy  of  landgraves  and  caciques  never  occupied  any 
place  in  the  government,  although  the  form  was  kept  up  of 
making  the  governor  a  landgrave  before  his  appointment.1 

One  more  of  the  early  elections  that  may  be  mentioned  is 
that  which  took  place  upon  the  death  of  Governor  Yeamans 
and  the  succession  of  West  to  the  vacant  position.  On 
August  1 6,  1674,  the  council  "  Resolved  that  the  ffreehold- 
ers  of  this  Settlem*  be  sumoned  to  appear  at  Charles-towne 
upon  Thursday  next  in  the  morning  then  and  there  to  elect 
a  ParliamV  After  the  election  of  the  parliament  members, 
the  latter  proceeded  to  elect  six  from  themselves  to  sit  with 
the  deputies  as  a  council.2 

In  looking  back  now  over  the  elections  of  these  first  four 
years  of  South  Carolina's  history,  we  are  met  with  the  fact 
that  popular  elections  and  a  representative  system  are  es 
tablished  from  the  first  days  of  the  settlement.  Had  there 
been  no  desire  on  the  part  of  the  proprietors  to  set  their 
"  Model"  in  motion,  it  is  quite  likely  that  occasional  meet 
ings  of  all  the  inhabitants  would  have  served  the  political 
needs  of  the  colony.  In  Maryland  the  pure  democracy  was 
retained  for  about  twenty  years,  and  in  the  New  England 
colonies  it  was  the  usual  type  of  early  colonial  organization. 
Its  evident  efficiency  is  seen  in  the  way  in  which  the  two 
popular  gatherings  in  South  Carolina,  of  July,  1670,  and 
March,  1671,  accepted  the  ordinances  of  the  governor  and 
council.  The  demagogue  William  Owen  would  have  had 
no  power  had  he  not  based  his  arguments  upon  the  proprie 
tary  instructions  for  a  parliament.  But  the  lords  proprie 
tors  must  needs  approach  as  near  as  possible  to  their  im 
practicable  form  of  government;  and  thus  in  1671,  when 
the  population  did  not  greatly  exceed  200,  and  there  may 
have  been  somewhat  over  fifty  freeholders,3 — these  free 
holders  were  required  to  select  twenty  for  a  parliament  in 
addition  to  the  five  deputies  of  the  proprietors ;  thus  making 

1  McCrady,  I,  157,  218,  232,  266,  etc. 

2  Coll  S.  C.  Hist.  Soc.,  V,  452 ;   Hewatt,  I,  74- 

3  In  March,  1670-71,  Owen  said  there  were  two  hundred  and  odd  in 
habitants,  of  whom  between  forty  and  fifty  were  freeholders.     By  July 
"  more  people"  arrived,  but  how  many  is  not  stated.     Coll.  S.  C.  Hist. 
Soc.,  V,  302,  337. 

9 


130     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

nearly  one-half  of  the  freemen  members  of  the  parliament. 
If  all  those  so  elected  actually  attended  the  parliament  meet 
ings,  it  is  probable  that  this  assembly  contained  a  larger  pro 
portion  of  the  voters  than  the  democratic  meetings  of  Mary 
land  or  Massachusetts,  in  which  the  proxy  system  and  the 
reluctance  of  freemen  to  travel  kept  the  real  attendance  far 
below  the  number  of  those  actually  empowered  to  partici 
pate. 

Another  fact  of  significance  in  these  early  elections  is  to 
be  found  in  the  synonymous  character  of  the  words  free 
man  and  freeholder.  The  first  term  has  here  little  semblance 
of  the  New  England  meaning,  but  if  ever  used  apart  from 
the  freeholder  sense,  it  meant  free  man.  There  is,  however, 
no  distinction  in  the  current  records  between  the  two  words. 
The  same  election,  as  an  inspection  of  the  preceding  excerpts 
will  show,  is  frequently  said  to  have  been  performed  by  the 
freemen  and  by  the  freeholders ;  and  from  the  point  of  view 
of  the  suffrage  the  two  may  be  taken  as  absolutely  synony 
mous.  The  very  nature  of  the  land  grants,  giving  150  acres 
or  some  smaller  amount  later  to  every  free  man,  would 
necessarily  make  the  terms  equivalent  in  fact,  as  they  are  in 
the  grammatical  usage  of  the  time.  The  Fundamental  Con 
stitutions  had  provided  that  electors  should  possess  at  least 
fifty  acres  of  land,1  and  although  the  constitutions  did  not 
become  effective,  yet  the  smallest  amount  of  land  promised 
to  freemen  was  seventy  acres ; 2  thus  ensuring  to  any  free 
'man  who  could  reach  the  colony,  and  to  every  servant  after 
his  time  expired,  an  amount  of  land  more  than  sufficient  to 
qualify  him  as  an  elector.  The  ease  with  which  land  was 

I  acquired  must  be  borne  continually  in  mind  when  we  con 
sider  the  colonial  real  estate  qualifications  for  the  suffrage. 
After  1674  the  suffrage  question  does  not  become  promi 
nent  until  the  French  Huguenots  had  come  into  the  colony 
in  large  numbers.  A  system  of  proxy  voting,  so  natural  in 
its  development  in  all  the  colonies  owing  to  the  difficulties  of 
transportation  and  the  impelling  necessity  of  the  struggle 
for  existence,  arose  in  South  Carolina.  The  proprietors  in 

1  Section  66  of  "  First  Set,"  Coll.  S.  C.  Hist.  Soc.,  V,  no. 
"Rivers,  Sketch,  Appendix,  348. 


The  Suffrage  in  South  Carolina.  131 

September,  1683,  wrote  to  the  governor  that  they  were  in 
formed 

"  that  men  are  admitted  to  bring  papers  for  others,  and  to  put  in  their 
votes  for  them  which  is  utterly  illegal  and  contrary  to  the  custom  of 
parliament,  and  will  in  time,  if  suffered,  be  very  mischievous.  You  are 
therefore  to  take  care  that  such  practices  be  not  suffered  for  the  future ; 
but  every  man  must  deliver  his  own  vote  and  no  man  be  suffered  to 
bring  the  vote  of  another."  1 

No  further  facts  concerning  this  early  proxy  method  have 
been  found,  but  it  illustrates  again  the  reluctance  of  the  early 
settlers  to  forsake  their  plantation  work  and  take  part  in 
elections.  In  the  intervening  years  there  was  dissatisfaction 
with  the  apportionment  of  representatives,  as  when  in  1683 
the  governor  was  directed  to  have  ten  representatives  for  each 
of  the  counties  of  Berkeley  and  Colleton  elected,  in  spite  of 
the  fact  that  the  former  was  far  more  populous  than  the  lat 
ter.2  During  this  period  the  assembly  refused  to  take  the 
oath  to  the  new  Fundamental  Constitutions  of  1682;  3  and 
later,  in  the  quarrel  which  arose  inevitably  over  the  payment 
of  quit-rents,  the  people  became  turbulent,  the  assembly 
would  not  recognize  Governor  Colleton,  and  the  province 
was  in  a  condition  of  anarchy.4 

Upon  the  revocation  of  the  Edict  of  Nantes  in  1685  tne 
proprietors  of  Carolina  encouraged  the  settlement  of  the  Hu 
guenot  exiles  in  the  province,  and  within  two  years  50,000 
acres  of  land  were  granted  to  Frenchmen.5  In  all  about 
400  of  these  persons  settled  in  Carolina  at  this  time.6  They, 
of  course,  continued  to  use  their  own  language,  and  while 
some  used  a  French  translation  of  the  English  Prayer-Book, 
others  maintained  a  non-conformist  service.  The  French 
men  were  not  at  once  admitted  to  the  rights  of  citizens. 
Governor  Southwell,  who  had  practically  gained  his  office 
by  popular  choice,  caused  an  act  to  be  passed  in  May,  1691, 

1  Rivers,  Sketch,  Appendix,  407. 

*Ibid.,  406-7. 

8  McCrady,  I,  210. 

*Hewatt,  I,  100-101;    McCrady,  I,  224-231. 

"Rivers,  Sketch,  174. 

'Ibid.,  447;    McCrady,  I,  324. 


132     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

for  the  naturalization  of  all  French  and  Swiss  Protestants ;  * 
but  this  act,  with  all  the  other  laws  of  this  parliament,  was 
disallowed  by  the  proprietors.  Had  the  act  been  ratified,  it 
might  have  prevented  subsequent  trouble,  for  in  1691  Gov 
ernor  Ludwell  was  instructed  to  grant  five  or  six  representa 
tives  to  Craven  County,  which  was  populated  almost  ex 
clusively  by  the  French.2  To  refuse  naturalization  to  the 
French,  and  then  to  give  these  aliens  the  right  to  elect  almost 
one-third  of  the  assembly,  was  more  than  the  English  in 
habitants  of  Berkeley  County  could  stand.  This  county, 
having  a  majority  of  the  population,  was  given  only  one- 
third  of  the  representation.  It  was  but  natural  that  the 
English  should  ask  "  Shall  the  Frenchmen,  who  cannot 
speak  our  language,  make  our  laws?"  3 

At  an  assembly  election  in  1692,  according  to  Lud well's 
instructions,   six  Frenchmen  represented  Craven  County.4 
This  assembly  passed  the  first  South  Carolina  act  "  to  Regu 
late  the  Elections  of  Members  of  Assembly."     The  act  is 
not  given  in  either  Trott's  Laws  or  the  Statutes  at  Large, 
but  an  idea  of  its  contents  can  be  gained  from  a  letter  of  the 
proprietors  to  Governor  Ludwell.5  From  this  it  appears  that 
/the  law  permitted  any  person  to  vote  for  representatives  who 
/jwas  willing  to  take  oath  that  he  was  worth  ten  pounds,  but 
/uit  did  not  specify  any  term  of  residence  for  an  elector.     The 
(fact  was  in  contravention  to  the  provision  of  the  constitutions 
jof  1669,^11^682,  which  required  a  voter  to  possess  a  free- 
[hold  of  fifty  acres,  and  yet  the  ten  pounds  qualification  ap- 
i  pears  again  in  an  accepted  law  of  I7O4.6    The  same  assem 
bly,  in  drawing  up  a  list  of  grievances  against  Governor 
Southwell,  protested  that  the  number  of  representatives  of 
the  people  was  too  small,  and  that  the  people  did  not,  as  the 
King's  charter  directed,  fix  the  number  of  their  delegates.7 
Only  three  weeks  after  the  assembly  had  passed  its  elec- 

1  Rivers,  Sketch,  175. 

2  N.  C.  Col.  Rec.,  I,  373;   Rivers,  Sketch,  176. 
'Rivers,  Sketch,  176. 

4  McCrady,  I,  239. 

5  Rivers,  Sketch,  Appendix,  437. 

e  Statutes  at  Large  of  S.  C.,  II,  249. 
7  Rivers,  Sketch,  Appendix,  434. 


The  Suffrage  in  South  Carolina.  133 

tion  law,  and  of  course  without  knowledge  of  it,  the  pro 
prietors  ordered,  in  November,  1692,  that  certain  laws, 
among  which  were  any  relating  to  the  election  of  representa 
tives  to  the  assembly,  should  not  go  into  force  until  the  pro 
prietary  confirmation  had  been  given.1  When  the  election 
act  reached  England,  the  proprietors  hastened  to  disallow  it. 
Since  all  the  representatives  were  for  the  present  elected  in 
counties,  the  proprietors  were  of  opinion  that  they  should  be 
chosen  only  by  freeholders,  thus  by  inference  conforming  to 
the  English  distinction  between  the  borough  and  the  county 
suffrage.  And  this  act 

"  not  mentioning  how  long  any  person  worth  tenn  pounds  must  have 
been  an  Inhabitant  of  the  County  before  he  be  admitted  to  vote  for 
members  of  the  Assembly,  it  is  so  loose  that  by  this  Act  all  the  Pyrates 
that  were  in  the  Shipp  that  had  been  plundering  in  the  Red  Sea  had 
been  qualified  to  vote  for  Representatives  in  Carolina,  which  being 
of  dangerous  consequence  to  the  Inhabitants,  we  have  thought  fitt  to 
dissent  to  that  act  alsoe."  " 

Whether  the  personal  property  Qualification  of  this  law 
was  a  means  to  open  the  suffrage  to  non-freeholding  citizens 
of  Berkeley  County — where  Charleston  was  situated — in  or 
der  to  counterbalance  the  power  of  the  French  is  not  clear ; 
but  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  opposition  to  the  Hugue 
nots  was  rapidly  growing  stronger.  Their  land  titles  were 
now  questioned,  their  marriages  were  popularly  held  to  be* 
void,  and  interference  was  made  with  their  religious  ser-[ 
vices.3  The  English  colonists  attempted,  moreover,  to  ex 
clude  them  altogether  from  political  privileges.  They  pre 
pared  an  address  to  Joseph  Blake,  whom  the  council  had 
chosen  governor  in  1694,  "  praying  that  the  refugees  might 
not  only  be  denied  the  privilege  of  sitting  as  members  of  the 
legislative  body,  but  also  of  a  vote  at  their  election,  and  that 
the  assembly  might  be  composed  only  of  English  members, 

1  Rivers,  Sketch,  Appendix,  435. 

8  Ibid.,  437.  The  "  Red  Sea  Pyrates"  is  a  reference  to  a  vessel  manned 
by  seventy  pirates,  who  ran  away  from  Jamaica  to  Charles  Towne, 
bringing  with  them  a  "vast"  quantity  of  gold  from  the  Red  Sea  (ColL 
S.  C.  Hist.  Soc.,  I,  205). 

•  Ibid. 


134     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

chosen  by  Englishmen."  1  Blake  did  not  grant  the  request, 
and  this  petition  appears  to  have  been  the  last  serious  opposi 
tion  to  the  French.  Under  Governor  Archdale's  adminis 
tration,  the  attitude  of  the  English  towards  the  refugees 
changed  rapidly  within  the  next  two  years, — a  change  which 
the  records  do  not  adequately  explain.2  As  early  as  Sep 
tember,  1696,  the  proprietors  had  received  word  from  the 
colony  that  the  assembly  was  inclined  to  grant  naturaliza 
tion  to  the  French,  and  they  express  their  satisfaction  at  the 
news.3  The  change  in  sentiment  must  have  been  noticed  in 
the  preceding  spring,  and  this  was  not  more  than  a  year  and 
a  half  after  the  petition  praying  for  the  total  exclusion  of 
the  French  from  political  rights  'had  been  presented. 

But  the  naturalization  act  did  not  pass  during  Archdale's 
administration.  It  was  Joseph  Blake,  again  acting  as  gov 
ernor,  who  advised  the  French  to  take  advantage  of  the 
change  in  popular  sentiment  and  petition  the  assembly  for 
admission  to  the  rights  of  English  citizenship.4  The  assem 
bly  could  now  say,  in  the  preamble  to  the  act  of  March  10, 
1696-97,  in  strong  contrast  to  the  feeling  two  years  earlier, 

"  Prosecution  for  Religion  hath  forced  some  Aliens  and  Trade  and 
the  Fertility  of  this  colony  has  encouraged  others  to  resort  to  this 
Colony,  all  which  have  given  Testimony  of  their  humble  Duty  and  Loy 
alty  to  his  Majesty  and  the  Crown  of  England,  and  of  their  Fidelity  to 
the  true  and  absolute  Lords  and  proprietors  of  this  Province,  and  of 
their  Obedience  to  their  Laws,  and  their  good  Affections  to  the  In 
habitants  thereof,  and  by  their  Industry,  Diligence  and  Trade  have 
very  much  enriched  and  advanced  this  Colony  and  Settlement  thereof."  5 

The  act  then  provided  "  that  all  Aliens,  Male  and  Female, 
of  what  Nation  soever,  which  now  are  Inhabitants  of  South- 

^Hewatt,  I,  128-9. 

2  Ibid.,   139-140,   simply   transcribes   the  preamble  of  the  naturaliza 
tion  act  of  1696-7  in  assigning  causes  for  the  change  in  feeling;    and 
McCrady,  I,  289,  does  not  throw  much  light  on  the  reasons  for  the 
more  kindly  spirit  of  the  English  colonists. 

3  Coll.  S.  C.  Hist.  Soc.,  I,  141 ;   Proprietors  to  Archdale,  September  10, 
1696. 

4  Hewatt,  I,  140 ;   McCrady,  I,  289. 

5  Statutes  at  Large  of  S.  C.,  II,  131 ;   Trott's  Laws,  I,  61. 


The  Suffrage  in  South  Carolina.  135 

Carolina,  their  Wives  and  Children/'  might  be  admitted  to 
all  the  rights  and  privileges  of  English  subjects,  and  be  ad 
judged  as  free  as  if  they  were  born  of  English  parents  within 
the  province.  The  petitioners  were  at  once  admitted  to  citi 
zenship,  and  any  others  might  be  given  the  same  privileges 
by  petitioning  the  governor  within  the  next  three  months. 
In  all  cases  the  petitioner  must  take  an  oath  of  allegiance  to 
King  William.  "  Full,  free  and  undisturbed  Liberty  of 
their  Consciences"  was  granted  to  all  Christians,  "  Papists 
only  excepted." 

Although  no  provision  was  made  for  future  alien  settlers, 
and  only  three  months  were  granted  to  the  French  to  hand 
in  their  petitions  and  take  the  oaths,1  yet  the  act  was  tem 
porarily  successful,2  and  the  political  position  of  aliens  does 
not  again  appear  upon  the  records  for  almost  five  years.  A 
permanent  naturalization  act  was  not  passed  until  I7O4.3 
The  political  contest  here  between  native-born  English  and 
aliens  is  almost  unique  in  colonial  history.  It  was  brought 
on  first  by  the  absence  of  any  general  naturalization  law; 
and,  secondly,  by  the  aim  of  the  proprietors  to  admit  the 
aliens  to  the  suffrage,  and  grant  the  county  inhabited  by 
them  a  representation  almost  equal  to  the  populous  Berkeley 
County,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  French  were  still  aliens 
and  could  legally  exercise  no  English  political  rights.  We 
find  popular  opposition  to  alien  voters  again  in  the  election 
troubles  of  the  years  1701-1706,  but  little  antagonism  to  the 
French  as  such.  The  earlier  jealousy  of  the  French  settlers 
apparently  arose  from  the  unwise  attempt  of  the  proprietors 
to  give  such  great  political  influence  to  unnaturalized  for 
eigners. 

The  assembly  which  naturalized  the  French  also  passed 
an  act  for  the  regulating  of  elections  of  members  of  the 
assembly;    but,  unfortunately,  the  act  is  not  given  in  the 
printed  collections  of  laws.4     From  a  private  letter  of  1703,  ) 
it  appears  that  this  act  contained  the  ten  pounds  qualifica- 

1  McCrady,  I,  323,  says  154  aliens  in  all  sought  naturalization  under 
the  act. 

2Hewatt,  I,  140. 

8  Statutes  at  Large  of  S.  C.,  II,  251 ;   Trott's  Laws,  I,  107. 
4 1  bid.,  130;    Ibid.,  60. 


136     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

tion  for  voters  to  which  the  proprietors  had  objected  in  1693, 
and  which  was  now  joined  to  a  three-months'  residence  in 
the  colony.  The  assembly  in  1703,  by  a  "  noble  vote,"  de 
clared  foreigners  who  possessed  these  qualifications  entitled 
to  vote;  which  caused  Landgrave  Smith  in  disgust  to  re 
mark  that  he  could  not  see  how  they  could  be  happy  in  the 
colony  unless  election  laws  and  some  others  were  to  be 
passed  in  England.1  The  terms  of  the  act  of  1696-97  were 
not  strong  enough,  however,  to  prevent  great  abuses  at  elec 
tions  within  a  few  years.2 

The  years  1700-1706  comprised  a  period  of  contest  for 
power  between  the  dissenters  and  the  Church  party,  in  which 
the  French  took  the  side  of  the  proprietors  and  Anglicans. 
During  this  time,  as  previously,  all  elections  were  held  in 
Charleston,  and  election  quarrels  and  frauds  were  frequent. 
The  relative  merits  of  the  two  parties  are  difficult  to  de 
termine  at  the  present  time.  Oldmixon  and  the  earlier  his 
torians  generally  accepted  the  story  of  the  dissenters,  while 
Mr.  Edward  McCrady,  in  his  scholarly  work  on  South  Caro 
lina  under  the  proprietors,  partly  exonerates  the  Churchmen 
from  the  criticism  formerly  heaped  upon  them.  Our  interest 
lies  mainly  with  the  influence  of  these  quarrels  upon  the  suf 
frage;  but  for  the  whole  period  the  reader  may  be  referred 
to  McCrady,  Carroll,  Hewatt,  Rivers,  and  the  documents 
in  the  appendix  to  Rivers. 

After  Governor  Blake's  death  in  1700,  the  council,  in 
some  confusion,  elected  James  Moore  as  governor.3  Moore 

1  McCrady,  I,  413,  quoting  Dalcho,  Church  History,  56. 

2  An  interesting  election  writ — the  only  one  noticed  in  South  Carolina 
— belongs  to  about  this  time.     (Rivers,  Sketch,  Appendix,  439.)     It  is 
directed  to  the  high  sheriff  of  Berkeley  County,  and  says : 

"  We  .  .  .  Command  you  to  Summon  all  the  King's  Leidge 
subjects,  the  freemen  Inhabitants  of  Berkly  County  to  be  and 
appear  together  with  all  the  rest  of  the  freemen  as  aforesaid  of 
this  part  of  our  Province,  at  Charlestowne,  on  the  ipth  day  of 
December  next,  then  and  there  by  a  majority  of  their  voices  to 
agree  to  and  ascertaine  the  number  of  their  Representatives  for 
this  part  of  the  Province,  to  consult  and  advise  with  us  about 
making  such  laws  as  shall  be  necessary  for  the  safety  and  de 
fence  of  this  Province." 
'Hewatt,  I,  145. 


The  Suffrage  in  South  Carolina.  137 

was  a  churchman  whose  not  over-sensitive  conscience  was 
rendered  more  flexible  by  the  financial  difficulties  in  which 
he  had  become  involved.1  In  the  election  of  1701  he  de 
termined  to  have  an  assembly  of  his  "  own  complexion" 
elected,  and  in  this  he  was  greatly  aided  by  the  custom  of 
electing  members  for  all  counties  in  the  city  of  Charleston. 
The  election  was  a  "  scene  of  riot,  intemperance,  and  con 
fusion,"  2  according  to  one  writer.  A  later  protest  by  the 
members  from  Colleton  County  premising  how  elections 
should  be  free  and  indifferent,  and  how  no  alien  not  specially 
qualified  may  elect  or  be  elected  to  serve  in  the  assembly, 
proceeds  to  describe  how  the  rights  of  Englishmen  had  been 
violated,  the  ancient  usages  and  customs  of  the  province 
broken,  and  the  act  for  regulating  elections  ignored. 

"  For  so  it  was,  may  it  please  your  Lordships,  that  at  the  said  Elec 
tion,  much  threat'nings,  many  intreaties  &  other  unjustifiable  actions 
were  made  use  of,  &  illegal  and  unqualify'd  votes  given  in  to  the  Sheriff, 
&  by  him  receiv'd  &  returned ;  particularly  the  votes  of  very  many  un 
qualify'd  Aliens  were  taken  &  enter'd,  the  votes  of  several  Members  of 
the  Council  were  fil'd  &  receiv'd,  a  great  number  of  Servants  &  poor  & 
indigent  persons  voted  promiscuously  with  their  Masters  &  Creditors, 
as  also  several  free  Negroes  were  receiv'd,  &  taken  for  as  good  Electors  W*''* 
as  the  best  Freeholders  in  the  Province.  So  that  we  leave  it  with 
Your  Lordships  to  judge  whether  admitting  Aliens,  Strangers,  Ser 
vants,  Negroes,  &c.,  as  good  and  qualified  Voters,  can  be  thought  any 
ways  agreeable  to  King  Charles'  Patent  to  Your  Lordships,  or  the  Eng 
lish  Constitution  of  Government."3 

The  assembly  which  met  after  these  election  frauds  was 
naturally  not  a  peaceable  one.  The  governor,  by  proroga 
tions,  prevented  an  investigation  of  the  last  election,  and 
then  turned  popular  attention  to  an  expedition  to  attack  the 
Spaniards  at  St.  Augustine.4  At  the  next  meeting  of  the 
assembly,  the  lower  house  took  steps  to  prevent  trouble  at 
the  next  election.  Accordingly,  a  bill  was  twice  passed  in 
the  lower  house  "  for  the  settling  of  Elections  for  the  future, 

1  McCrady,  I,  374- 

8  Hewatt,  I,  150. 

8  Rivers,  Sketch,  Appendix,  455. 

4  Ibid.,  455-456. 


138     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

and  for  granting  as  much  freedom  to  the  French  and  other 
Aliens  as  could  be  granted  by  the  Assembly,  or  the  French 
reasonably  expect."  1  These  bills,  the  contents  of  which  are 
not  known,  were  rejected  by  the  governor  and  council  with 
out  granting  a  conference.  Perhaps  it  was  with  design  that 
a  more  stringent  election  law  was  not  passed,  and  aliens  and 
unpropertied  persons  excluded  from  the  suffrage.  The  dis 
senters  claimed  that  the  election  of  1703  was  accompanied 
with  greater  irregularities  than  occurred  at  the  former  one. 
Now,  it  was  said  "  Jews,  Strangers,  Sailors,  Servants,  Ne 
groes  and  almost  every  French  Man  in  Craven  &  Berkly 
County  came  down  to  elect,  &  their  Votes  were  taken,  & 
the  Persons  by  them  voted  for  were  returned  by  the  Sheriff, 
to  the  manifest  wrong  &  prejudice  of  other  Candidates."  2 

The  assembly  so  elected  is  one  of  the  memorable  legis 
latures  of  South  Carolina.  Whether  truly  representative  of 
the  population  or  not, — and  the  historians  differ  as  to  the 
proportions  of  churchmen  and  dissenters  at  this  time, — it 
was  strongly  in  favor  of  the  English  church,  and  in  sym 
pathy  with  the  plans  of  the  proprietors  and  the  governor  for 
a  church  establishment.3  The  coalition  of  High  Church 
men  and  French  Huguenots  had  given  the  former  control  of 
the  assembly,  and  they  now  proceeded  to  turn  the  tables  upon 
the  dissenters  who  had  attempted  to  cut  out  the  French 
from  political  privileges,  by  presently  passing  an  act  which 
would  exclude  the  dissenters  themselves  from  the  assembly. 
The  act  of  May  6,  1704,  in  a  lengthy  title  and  preamble, 
stated  its  purpose  to  be  the  "  more  effectual  preservation  of 
the  government,"  by  requiring  the  members  of  the  commons 
house  of  assembly  to  take  certain  oaths,  conform  to  the 

1  Rivers,  Sketch,  Appendix,  457 ;    Oldmixon,  in  Carroll,  Collections, 

II,  425. 

2  Ibid.,  459.     The  authors  of  the  Colleton  County  Representation  say 
that  the  French,  owing  to  their  ignorance  of  the  English  language,  were 
often  made  tools  of  and  imposed  upon.    They  advised  legislation  by  an 
English  assembly,  for,  they  say,  "  we  can't  imagine  that  we  do  them  any 
hurt,  by  making  good  and  wholesome  Laws  for  us  &  them,  since  we 
oblige  them  by  no  Laws  whatsoever,  or  upon  any  account,  then  what  we 
ourselves  are  obliged  by,  &  live  under." 

"Hewatt,  I,  149-153,  163-170;    Oldmixon,  in  Carroll,  Collections,  II, 
418,  436. 


The  Suffrage  in  South  Carolina.  139 

Church  of  England,  and  take  the  Lord's  Supper  according 
to  the  service  of  that  church.1  Disavowing  a  desire  to  perse 
cute  for  the  sake  of  religion,  the  act  stated  that  many  con 
tentions  and  animosities  had  been  created  by  admitting  per 
sons  of  differing  religious  sentiments  into  the  assembly,  and 
that  a  policy  of  restricting  membership  to  Churchmen  had 
been  adopted  by  the  English  House  of  Commons.2  The  act 
required  all  persons  elected  to  the  assembly  to  present  evi 
dence  that  they  had  partaken  of  the  Lord's  Supper  accord 
ing  to  the  rites  of  the  Church  of  England;  or  that,  feeling 
themselves  unworthy  to  partake,  they  regularly  attended 
divine  services  according  to  the  English  form.3 

Under  the  new  act  even  a  Churchman  might  be  incon 
venienced,  for  there  were  only  two  Anglican  churches  in  the 
colony,4  and  to  either  of  these  the  member  must  journey  and 
receive  the  sacrament ;  and,  indeed,  it  was  claimed  that  most 
of  the  members  who  voted  for  the  measure  had  been  con 
stant  abstainers  from  the  sacrament.5  A  most  unjust  clause 
provided  for  the  seating  of  the  candidate  having  the  next 
highest  number  of  votes,  when  a  dissenter  refused  to  qualify 
according  to  the  act.  Thus  were  the  dissenters  to  taste  the 
pains  of  political  disqualification  which  they  had  recently 
been  anxious  to  impose  upon  the  Huguenots.  In  Colleton 
County,  out  of  200  electors,  only  fourteen  were  qualified  to 
serve  in  the  assembly;  and  at  the  election  of  1705  only  ten 
voters  from  this  county  came  to  the  election  in  Charleston, 
where  they  voted  for  fourteen  candidates  and  the  sheriff 
returned  the  ten  having  the  highest  number  of  votes.6 
"  Craven  and  Berkley  Counties  were  so  streightned  by 
the  qualifying  act,  that  they  had  not  20  men  to  represent 

1  Statutes  at  Large,  II,  232 ;    Trott's  Laws,  I,  105. 

2  This  was  not  true. 

3  The  proprietors  ratified  this  act,  sometimes  called  the  "  Occasiona1 
Act,"  and  the  church  act  passed  at  the  same  time.    The  English  House 
of  Lords  petitioned  the  Queen  against  the  acts,  but  nothing  came  of 
this   opposition.      For   full   account  of  these   events,   see   McCrady,   I, 
406-445. 

4  McCrady,  I,  408. 

6  Oldmixon,  in  Carroll,  Collections,  II,  434. 
6  Carroll,  Collections,  II,  41. 


140     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

them,  unless  they  would  choose  a  dissenter,  or  a  man  not  fit 
to  sit  in  the  assembly."  1 

In  1704,  while  the  Church  party  was  in  power,  they  passed 
two  other  important  acts  in  addition  to  the  church  acts;  one 
for  the  regulation  of  elections,  and  the  other  for  the  natu 
ralization  of  aliens.  The  reason  for  passing  the  election  act 
was  said  to  be  the  many  and  troublesome  complaints  which 
lately  had  been  presented  to  the  assembly,  and  their  con 
sideration  which  consumed  too  much  time,  and  interfered 
with  "  more  necessary  and  publick  business."  2  The  voters' 
qualifications  were  apparently  not  changed  from  those  re 
quired  by  the  act  of  1696-97,  but  we  have  the  full  text  of 
the  law  for  the  first  time.  It  is  provided 

"  That  no  person  whatsoever,  under  the  age  of  one  and  twenty  years, 
shall  have  right  to  vote  for  any  member  of  Assembly  in  any  county  or 
precinct  whatsoever,  and  that  no  person  whatsoever,  which  hath  less 
than  fifty  acres-of  Jand  in  possession!^  or  value  of  ten  pounds,  in  money, 
goods,  chattels  or  rents,  and  which  doth  not  personally  reside  and 
dwell  in  the  county  or  precinct  for  which  he  doth  vote  for,  or  pretend 
to  choose  members  of  Assembly,  by  the  space  of  three  months  before 
the  dates  of  the  writts  for  election  shall  have  right  to  vote  for  members 
as  aforesaid." 

The  fifty  acres  and  the  ten  pounds  provision  had  probably 
been  a  part  of  the  disallowed  act  of  1692,  and  of  that  of 
1696-97;  while  the  three  months'  residence  had  already 
been  adopted  in  the  latter  act.3 

Persons  not  residing  in  any  county  were  to  be  permitted 
to  vote  with  the  next  adjoining  county  or  precinct ;  sheriffs 
were  authorized  to  administer  an  oath  to  persons  whose 
qualification  was  in  doubt;  and  all  county  or  precinct 
officers  were  forbidden  to  serve  in  the  assembly.  A  posi 
tive  prohibition  of  proxy  voting,  similar  to  such  provisions 
in  other  colonies,  was  a  part  of  this  measure : 

"  That  every  election  for  members  of  Assembly  shall  be  in  some  open 
and  publick  place,  and  that  no  person  whatsoever,  here  qualified  to  vote, 

1  Carroll,  Collections,  II,  441. 
*  Statutes  at  Large,  II,  249-251. 
8  See  p.  135- 


The  Suffrage  in  South  Carolina.  141 

pshall,  being  absent  from  the  place  of  election,  give  his  voice  or  vote  by 
/proxy,  letter,  or  any  other  way  whatsoever,  but  shall  be  present  in 
'  person  or  his  voice  to  be  taken  for  none."  * 

The  polls  were  to  be  open  from  8  to  12  in  the  forenoon  and 
from  2  to  6  in  the  afternoon  on  not  more  than  two  days. 
After  the  adjournment  on  the  first  day,  the  sheriff  was  di 
rected  to  "  seal  up  in  a  paper  bag  or  box  all  the  votes  given 
in  that  day  in  the  presence  of  and  with  the  seals  of  two  or 
I  more  of  each  contending  party;"   which  is  presumptive  evi- 
/  dence  that  voting  was  performed  by  ballot.     It  is  remark- 
(  able,  indeed,  that  throughout  the  history  of  South  Carolina, 
voting  was  uniformly  by  ballot;   we  have  seen  a  subscribing 
of  hands  in  the  first  election  of  councillors  at  Port  Royal  in 
1670;  some  form  of  subscription  or  ballot  was  also  probably 
used  in  the  other  early  elections;   and  from  1683  onward 
to  1904  the  ballot  has  been  invariably  used.2 

Aliens  wrere  not  formally  excluded  from  the  suffrage  by 
this  act,  and  only  a  year  earlier  the  assembly  by  vote  had  held 
that  aliens,  if  otherwise  properly  qualified,  could  vote  under 
the  law  of  1696-97.  But  now,  either  to  reward  their  late 
friends,  or  to  place  their  right  to  vote  beyond  question,  an 
act  for  the  naturalization  of  foreigners  was  passed.3  This 
law  permitted  aliens  to  be  naturalized  and  admitted  to  all 
the  rights  of  English  citizens  upon  taking  the  oath  of  alle 
giance  to  the  Queen,  and  the  oath  of  abhorrency  against  the 
Pope's  pretended  power  of  deposition.  But  no  alien  could 
sit  in  the  assembly;  and  none  could  vote  for  assembly 
members  unless  he  was  qualified  according  to  the  terms  of 
the  act  of  1704.  This  was  the  first  general  naturalization 

1  Proxy  voting  had  already  been  forbidden  by  the  proprietors  as  early 
as  1683.  In  Barbadoes,  by  acts  of  1709  and  1713,  sheriffs,  election 
officers,  and  candidates,  not  being  able  to  visit  several  polling  places 
when  properly  qualified  in  each,  were  permitted  to  send  "  Letters"  to 
the  election  officers  of  other  parishes,  giving  their  votes  therein.  Acts 
of  Assembly  Passed  in  the  Island  of  Barbadoes,  From  1648  to  1718 
(London,  1721),  pp.  271,  280. 

9  McCrady,  I,  199,  note,  says,  "  There  never  has  been  an  election  in 
South  Carolina  except  by  ballot,  as  far  as  is  known." 

8  Act  of  November  4,  1704,  Statutes  at  Large,  II,  251 ;  Trott's  Laws, 
I,  107. 


OF  THF-. 

UN 

k 


142     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

act  which  was  enacted,  since  that  of  1696-97  applied  only 
to  aliens  then  resident  in  the  province,  and  gave  them  only 
three  months  to  accept  its  terms.  The  act,  although  perhaps 
a  party  measure  dictated  by  party  policy,  served,  neverthe 
less,  as  nothing  else  could  do,  to  incorporate  the  foreigners 
into  the  life  of  the  community.  An  occasional  reference  is 
made  to  Frenchmen  in  the  accounts  of  the  succeeding  elec 
tion,  but  from  that  time  they  disappear  as  a  distinct  party 
from  the  colonial  political  life,  and  the  alien  question,  which 
had  troubled  the  country  for  twenty  years,  was  now  set  at 
rest. 

Even  after  the  act  regulating  elections  had  been  passed  in 
1704,  we  still  hear  of  election  evils.  "  Masters  of  ships" 
were  sought  after  as  voters  ;  and  "  violence"  still  accom 
panied  the  elections.1  In  order  to  protect  their  work,  the 
assembly  went  so  far  as  to  extend  their  own  terms  of  office  f 
but  the  governor  failed  to  respect  this  act  and  dissolved  the 
legislature  shortly  afterwards.  The  objectionable  religious 
acts  of  1704  were  repealed  in  November,  1706,  and  there 
after  the  factional  animosities  and  election  contests  grew 
less  virulent.  A  great  excitement  was,  indeed,  aroused  at 
the  time  of  the  election  of  Robert  Gibbes  as  governor  upon 
the  death  of  Governor  Tynte  in  I7io;3  but  Gibbes  was 
shortly  after  superseded  by  Charles  Craven,  who  assumed 
control  in  I7I2.4  Under  Governor  Craven  the  popular  ex 
citement  ceased,  and  we  are  told  that  "  The  assembly  in  his 
time  was  not  elected,  as  formerly,  in  a  riotous  and  tumultary 
manner,  but  with  the  utmost  harmony  and  regularity,  and 
proceeded  to  their  deliberations  with  great  temper  and  mu 
tual  friendship.'.'  5 

The  following  four  years,  apparently  so  peaceful  for  the 
colony,  were  in  reality  storing  up  wrath  against  the  pro 
prietors.  A  number  of  things  combined  about  1717  to  make 
the  proprietary  government  peculiarly  obnoxious  to  the  col 
onists,  and  led  to  the  demand  for  the  assumption  of  political 

1  Oldmixon,  in  Carroll,  Collections,  II,  441-443. 
'Statutes  at  Large,  II,  266. 
'McCrady,  I,  489-491. 


6  Hewatt,  I,  200. 


The  Suffrage  in  South  Carolina.  143 

control  by  the  Crown.  One  of  the  first  of  these  facts  was 
the  Yamassee  Indian  war  which  broke  out  early  in  1715; 
and,  after  the  perpetration  of  horrible  atrocities  by  the  In 
dians,  was  suppressed  only  by  supreme  exertions  and  great 
expense  on  the  part  of  the  colonists.1  The  weakness  of  the 
proprietary  government  was  clearly  shown  in  the  course  of 
this  war,  while  its  narrow  policy  was  evidenced  at  the  close 
of  the  war,  when  it  forbade  the  provincial  authorities  to 
protect  their  frontier  by  colonizing  five  hundred  Irish  upon 
the  deserted  Indian  lands.2  Most  unwisely,  too,  the  pro 
prietors  had  placed  a  number  of  the  colonial  offices  in  the 
hands  of  two  unpopular  men,3  Nicholas  Trott  and  his 
brother-in-law,  William  Rhett ;  who  thus  were  enabled  to  ex 
ercise  wide  political  power,  and  interfere  with  elections  of 
members  of  assembly  at  the  general  elections  in  Charleston.4 
The  proprietors  gave  Trott  a  practical  veto  upon  all  the  busi 
ness  of  the  council  and  upon  legislation  by  forbidding  the 
transaction  of  any  business  unless  he  was  present  at  the 
council  meeting.5  Quarrels  also  arose  inevitably  over  the 
quit-rents  due  to  the  proprietors,  and  concerning  the  dis 
position  of  the  profits  of  the  Indian  trade.  To  these  causes 
for  dissatisfaction,  the  proprietors  added  another,  which  at 
length  drove  the  people  of  their  province  into  open  insur 
rection. 

In  1716,  after  Governor  Craven  had  left  the  colony,  the 
assembly  passed  a  number  of  important  and  popular  meas 
ures,  among  which  was  one  for  the  appointment  of  a  public 
receiver,  another  for  the  laying  of  duties  upon  slaves  and 
goods  imported  into  the  colony,  and  another  for  regulating 
elections.  The  last  of  these  is  the  one  which  has  most  value 
for  our  purposes. 

It  has  been  noted  that  the  assembly  elections  were  all  held 
in  Charleston;  and  although  members  were  said  to  be 
elected  for  one  or  another  of  the  counties,  yet  the  voters  of 

^or  account  of  this  war,  see  McCrady,  I,  53O~556;    Hewatt,  I,  212- 
230. 

'Hewatt,  I,  229-230. 
'McCrady,  I,  528-529;   Hewatt,  I,  231. 
4  Hewatt,  I,  232. 
•McCrady,  I,  529. 


144     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

all  counties  must  assemble  in  Charleston  on  the  two  days  of 
election,  and  there  decide  upon  their  county  representatives. 
The  burden  and  inconvenience  of  such  a  plan  must  have  been 
felt  at  an  early  day,  and  for  a  time  the  proprietors  favored 
the  holding  of  elections  in  the  localities.  In  1683  they  di 
rected  that  ten  assemblymen  should  be  chosen  at  Charleston 
and  ten  at  London  in  Colleton  County,1  but  this  method  ap 
parently  did  not  become  the  custom,2  and  the  proprietors 
"issued  their  commands  in  vain."  In  1690  the  proprietors 
write  that  they  have  received  information  that  it  is  found 
troublesome  and  expensive  for  the  inhabitants  to  come  to 
Charleston,  and  they  therefore  advise  that  the  county  of 
Berkeley  should  be  divided  into  four  election  precincts.3  In 
1697  the  proprietors  again  revert  to  the  subject,  proposing 
the  formation  of  districts;  and  adding  that  if  the  inhabit 
ants  of  Charleston  object,  the  governor  may  propose  to  erect 
them  into  a  corporation  with  the  usual  privileges.4  The  last 
clause  may  give  us  the  reason  why  the  change  was  not 
earlier  accomplished;  the  Charleston  inhabitants  would  be 
benefited  in  many  ways,  and  would  gain  considerably 
greater  influence  in  the  elections  if  they  were  held  in  the 
city,  and  their  representatives  in  the  assembly  would  doubt 
less  oppose  any  district  system. 

But  the  proprietors  themselves  later  favored  these  elec 
tions  in  Charleston,  perhaps  because  they  could  be  more 
easily  influenced  than  a  number  of  separate  elections  in  dis 
tant  country  towns.  Trott  and  Rhett,  the  proprietary  work 
ers,  gained  a  "  great  Sway  in  the  Elections,"  5  which  were 
often  conducted  for  their  purposes  in  a  tumultuous  fashion. 
Several  grand  juries  had  presented  these  Charleston  elec 
tions  as  a  public  evil,6  and  at  last  in  1716  the  assembly  took 

1  Rivers,  Sketch,  Appendix,  406-7. 
8  Collections  S.  C.  Hist.  Soc.,  I,  124. 

*  Elections  in  Charleston  are  referred  to  in  Hewatt,  I,  232,  255 ;    Car 
roll,  Collections,  II,  148,  159,  162,  318,  441 ;    McCrady,  I,  198-200,  282, 
etc. 

*  Collections  S.  C.  Hist.  Soc.,  I,  142. 

8  Proceedings  of  the  People  of  South  Carolina,  Carroll,  Collections, 

II,  149- 
'  Statutes  at  Large,  II,  683. 


The  Suffrage  in  South  Carolina.  145 

steps  to  district  the  colony  and  hold  the  elections  in  the 
parish  churches.  Trott  and  Rhett,  believing  their  influence 
would  be  lessened  "  by  this  new  Method,"  endeavored  in 
vain  to  prevent  the  passage  of  the  bill ;  the  assembly  passed 
the  act  and  sent  it  to  England  for  ratification.1  It  was  said 
that  of  this  act,  "  the  People  were  very  fond ;  finding  it  gave 
them  a  greater  freedom  of  Election,  and  was  more  to  them 
than  going  out  of  their  respective  Counties  to  Charles 
Towne."  2 

The  act  of  December  15,  I7i6,3  is  entitled  "An  Act  to 
keep  inviolate  and  preserve  the  freedom  of  Elections,  and 
appoint  who  shall  be  deemed  and  adjudged  capable  of  choos 
ing  or  being  chosen  Members  of  the  Commons  House  of 
Assembly."  The  preamble  states  that  "  the  far  greatest  part 
of  the  inhabitants  in  their  respective  counties  of  this  Prov 
ince,  are  at  a  considerable  distance  from  the  stated  places 
of  election,  whereby  they  are  at  great  expense  of  time  and 
money,  besides  all  other  hazards  in  comeing  to  choose  mem 
bers  of  the  Commons  House  of  Assembly ;"  and  that  "  the 
several  counties  of  this  Province  are  divided  into  distinct 
parishes,  so  that  in  them  elections  for  members  of  the  Com 
mons  House  of  Assembly  may  be  managed  so  as  in  a  great 
measure  to  prevent  the  bad  effects  of  the  present  manner  of 
electing  the  said  members."  Following  then  the  election 
laws  of  Barbadoes,  as  Mr.  McCrady  has  pointed  out,4  the 
law  provided  for  the  use  of  the  parishes,  already  established 
by  the  church  acts  of  1704  and  1706,  as  election  districts; 
for  the  holding  of  elections  in  the  churches  or  other  con 
venient  places  between  sunrise  and  sunset  on  not  more  than 
two  successive  days;  and  appointed  the  church-wardens  as 
managers  of  the  elections.  The  existence  of  the  paper  ballot 
is  shown  by  the  following  excerpts : 

"  Upon  the  closing  of  the  poll,  at  convenient  hours  in  the  time  of  the 
aforesaid  election   [the  church  wardens]   shall  put  all  the  votes  then 

1  Carroll,  Collections,  II,  149.  2  Ibid. 

3  Statutes  at  Large,  II,  683-691. 

4  McCrady,  I,  560.     See  also  election  law  of  Barbadoes  of  1709,  Acts 
of  Assembly  of  Barbadoes  (London  edition,  1721),  pp.  266-274;    and 
election  law  of  Jamaica,  1681,  Laws  of  Jamaica  (London,  1684). 

10 


146     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

delivered  in  and  rolled  up  by  the  electors,  into  some  box,  glass  or 
paper,  sealed  up  with  the  seals  of  any  two  or  more  of  the  electors  that 
are  then  present,  and  upon  the  opening  of  the  poll,  shall  unseal  the  said 
box,  glass  or  paper,  in  order  to  proceed  in  the  said  election." 

"...  The  names  of  the  electors  for  members  of  the  Commons 
House  of  Assembly,  shall  be  fairly  entered  in  a  book  or  roll  for  that 
purpose  provided  by  the  church  warden  or  church  wardens  of  each 
parish,  to  prevent  any  persons  voting  twice  at  the  same  election,  and 
that  if  in  voting,  two  or  more  papers  with  persons  names  written 
thereon  for  members  of  Assembly,  be  (upon  the  scrutiny)  found  rolled 
up  together,  or  more  persons  names  be  found  written  on  any  paper  than 
ought  to  be  voted  for  (to  which  paper  the  elector  shall  not  be  obliged 
to  subscribe  his  name)  all  and  every  such  paper  and  papers  shall  be 
invalid  and  of  no  effect.  ..." 

The  act  went  farther,  however,  than  merely  to  establish 
the  parish  as  the  election  division,  for  it  introduced  consider 
able  changes  in  the  qualifications  of  voters  and  members  of 
assembly.  We  have  seen  by  the  act  of  1704,  that  electors 
must  possess  fifty  acres  of  land  of  ten  pounds  value  of  per 
sonal  property,  and  they  must  have  resided  in  the  county  at 
least  three  months  before  the  election.  The  new  act  not  only 
changed  the  existing  residence  and  property  qualifications, 
but  also  added  religious  and  racial  restrictions.  Some  fif 
teen  years  earlier  complaints  had  been  made  that  among 

|  other  unqualified  persons,  some  Jews  and  negroes  had  voted. 

/Under  the  law  of  1716  these  classes  were  excluded.     The 

I  act  reads, 

"And  whereas  it  is  necessary  and  reasonable,  that  none  but  such 
persons  who  have  an  interest  in  this  Province  should  be  capable  to 
elect  or  be  elected  members  of  the  Commons  House  of  Assembly,  Be 
it  enacted  by  the  authority  aforesaid,  That  every  white  man,  and  no 
other,  professing  the  Christian  religion,  who  hath  attained  to  the  age 
of  one-and-twenty  yearT,~an3  ¥ath~  teen  "in"  this  Province  for  the  space 
of  six  months  before  the  date  of  the  writs  for  the  election  that  he 
offers  to  give  his  vote  at,  and  upon  his  oath,  (if  required  by  the  church 
warden  or  church  wardens,  or  any  person  present  qualified  to  vote),  be 
proved  to  be  worth  thirty  pounds  current  money  of  this  Province  shall 
be  deemed  a  person  qualified  to  vote  for  and  may  be  capable  of  electing 
a  representative  or  representatives  to  serve  as  a  member  or  members 
of  the  Commons  House  of  Assembly  for  the  parish  or  precinct  wherein 
he  actually  is  resident." 


The  Suffrage  in  South  Carolina.  147 

Members  of  the  assembly  were  required  to  own  five  hun 
dred  pounds  current  money  or  five  hundred  acres  of  land  in 
the  parish  for  which  they  were  chosen.  Persons  owning 
lands  in  certain  parishes,  temporarily  deserted  on  account  of 
the  Indian  war,  were  given  the  strange  privilege  of  voting 
for  representatives  for  the  deserted  parishes  and  not  for  the 
parishes  in  which  they  were  temporarily  resident.  Fines 
were  to  be  imposed  upon  officers  making  fraudulent  returns, 
and  upon  persons  bribing  or  intimidating  voters.  Voters 
were  to  be  free  from  civil  writs  in  going  to  and  coming  from 
and  while  at  the  place  of  election. 

From  this  summary  of  its  provisions,  it  will  be  seen  that 
the  election  act  of  1716  established  a  considerably  different 
basis  for  the  suffrage.     The  franchise  was  now  limited  tc\ 
white  Christian  male  citizens  over  twenty-one  years  of  age,\ 
who  had  been  at  least  six  months  in  the  colony  and  who  J 
actually  resided  in  the  election  district  wherein  they  voted  j 
and  the  fifty  acres  or  ten  pounds  requirement  now  gave  place\ 
to  a  uniform  property  qualification  of  thirty  pounds  current  \ 
money.     The  latter  phrase  is  not  in  itself  intelligible  unless 
it  is  understood  that  as  early  as  1702  the  colony  had  issued 
paper  money  in  the  form  of  bills  of  credit.    Subsequent  emis 
sions  were  made  in  1706,  1707,  1712,  1716; 1  and  the  value 
of  the  currency   rapidly   declined.      By   1714  sterling  ex 
change  was  quoted  at  two  hundred  per  cent,2  and  the  end 
was  not  yet  reached.     It  is  safe  to  say  that  the  thirty  pounds 
currency  in   1716  did  not  represent  a  greater  purchasing 
power  than  that  of  ten  pounds  sterling. 

Weak  places  in  the  act  of  1716  were  soon  found,  and 
scarcely  six  months  after  its  passage,  "  an  additional  and  ex 
planatory  act"  was  found  necessary.  We  are  told  that  dis 
putes  had  arisen  about  the  qualifications  of  voters  and  repre 
sentatives,  and  that  the  meaning  of  the  former  act  "  hath 
been  wrongfully  wrested  and  perverted."  3  Judging  from 
the  negative  provisions  which  were  added,  it  would  appear 
that  apprentices  or  indentured  servants,  seafaring  men,  and 

1  McCrady,  I,  524. 

'Hewatt,  I,  204;    Statutes  at  Large,  II,   713;    Ramsay,   History  of 
South  Carolina,  II,  163. 
8  Statutes  at  Large,  III,  2. 


148     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

other  transients  had  participated  in  the  elections.  The  sup 
plementary  act  of  July  29,  I7I7,1  made  a  number  of  minor 
changes,  almost  all  of  which  must  have  worked  towards  a 
restriction  of  the  suffrage.  The  elector  was  now  required  to 
reside  in  the  parish — not  merely  in  the  province — six  months 
before  the  election;  his  property  qualification  was  changed 
from  thirty  pounds  to  fifty  acres  of  freehold,  or  the  payment 
of  taxes  for  the  support  of  the  government  upon  property 
worth  at  least  fifty  pounds  current  money;  and  it  was  es 
pecially  stated  that  "  no  apprentice  or  other  covenanted  ser 
vant  for  term  of  years,  whether  by  indenture  or  by  custom 
of  the  county,  nor  any  seafaring  or  other  transient  man,  who 
has  neither  freehold  nor  is  liable  to  pay  tax  for  a  stock  of 
fifty  pounds  current  money"  should  be  deemed  capable  of 
voting  for  representatives.  Similar  changes  were  made  in 
the  qualifications  of  a  representative,  who  must  be  a  free- 
born  subject  of  Great  Britain  or  the  dominions  belonging 
thereto,  or  a  person  naturalized  by  act  of  parliament  in  Great 
Britain  or  Ireland,  twenty-one  years  of  age,  a  resident  of  the 
province  for  twelve  months,  a  resident  of  the  parish  which 
he  represents,  and  possessed  of  five  hundred  acres  of  land  in 
the  parish  or  one  thousand  pounds  value  of  houses,  lots  and 
lands  in  other  parts  of  the  province,  or  the  same  value  of 
personal  property.2 

The  evident  purpose  of  this  act  was  to  approach  more 
closely  to  the  ideal  already  expressed  in  the  law  of  1716, 
"  that  none  but  such  persons  who  have  an  interest  in  this 
Province  should  be  capable  to  elect  or  be  elected."  The 
change  in  the  property  qualification  from  thirty  to  fifty 
pounds  may  have  been  due  to  a  renewed  depreciation  of  the 
currency  after  the  issue  of  more  paper  money  in  i"/i6.3  By 
requiring  this  property  to  be  taxable,  the  ordinary  personal 
property  of  uncertain  value  would  be  excluded,  as  the  only 

1  Statutes  at  Large,  III,  2-4. 

2  A  person  owning  a  settled  plantation  of  five  hundred  acres  with  ten 
able  working  negro  slaves,  under  the  care  of  at  least  one  white  man, 
within  the  county  where  the  owner  resides,  might  be  elected  for  the 
parish  where  the  plantation  is  situated,  although  not  himself  a  resident 
of  that  parish. 

3McCrady,  I,  524. 


i 


The  Suffrage  in  South  Carolina.  149 

taxable  property  at  this  time  consisted  of  land  and  negroes.1 
The  strict  residence  requirements,  both  of  voters  and  repre 
sentatives,  were  also  intended  to  include  only  those  having 
*'  sufficient  evidence  of  permanent  common  interest"  2  with 
the  community ;  yet  these  restrictions  were  at  variance  with 
the  usual  practice  in  the  colonies  and  the  uniform  custom  of 
England. 

But  the  work  which  the  colonists  had  built  up  with  such 
pains  in  the  election  acts  of  1716  and  1717,  the  proprietors 
determined  should  be  overthrown  by  a  stroke  of  their  nulli 
fying  pen.  Trott  and  Rhett  had  been  writing  to  England 
and  urging  the  proprietors  to  disallow  the  election  laws  to 
gether  with  several  other  recent  acts.3  Accepting  their  side 
of  the  question,  the  proprietors  on  July  22,  1718,  placed  their 
veto  upon  the  election  laws.  They  say : 

''  We  have  likewise  read  and  considered  two  Acts  of  Assembly 
.  .  .  and  finding  the  said  two  Acts  tend  to  the  entire  alteration  and 
subversion  of  the  Constitution  of  the  Province  of  South  Carolina,  and 
are  contrary  to  the  laws  and  customs  of  Parliament  in  Great  Britain, 
we  therefore  do  declare  the  two  last  mentioned  Acts  to  be  null  and 
void,  and  we  do  hereby  repeal,  nullifie  and  make  void  the  said  two 
Acts,  and  every  clause,  matter  or  thing  therein  contained"  whatsoever."  * 

With  the  repeal  of  the  election  law  the  proprietors  directed 
that  the  assembly  should  be  dissolved,  and  a  new  one  be 
elected  in  Charleston  according  to  the  old  method.5  The 
governor  and  council  tried  to  conceal  these  instructions,  but 
the  substance  of  them  became  known  and,  joined  to  the  dis 
allowance  of  other  popular  laws,  led  to  great  excitement  in 
the  colony.  Governor  Johnson  did  not  put  himself  in  full 
accord  with  the  popular  sentiment,  and,  on  the  other  hand, 
he  received  the  proprietary  reprimand  for  not  carrying  the 
orders  into  immediate  execution.6 

1  See  tax  act  of  1721,  Statutes  at  Large,  III,  149-157. 

2  Virginia  Bill  of  Rights,  1776,  Section  6;    the  phraseology  is  most 
interestingly   similar  to  the   South   Carolina  act  of   1716,   Statutes  at 
Large,  II,  688. 

*  Carroll,  Collections,  II,  149 ;    Hewatt.  I,  232. 

4  Statutes  at  Large,  III,  31 ;  McCrady,  I,  626-628. 

•Carroll,  Collections,  150,  160.       *  Ibid.,  158-159;   Hewatt,  I,  240.  246. 


150     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

"  Thus  the  People  were  irritated  and  heated  to  a  violent 
Degree,  and  the  Basis  of  all  Government  being  either  Love, 
Fear  or  Interest,  or  perhaps  any  two,  or  a  Mixture  of  all 
the  three,  but  in  this  there  was  neither  one  nor  the  other."  * 
The  popular  movement  increased  in  strength  until  a  general 
association  was  formed  in  1719,  "  to  stand  by  their  Rights 
and  Privileges,  and  to  get  rid  of  the  Oppression  and  Arbi 
trary  Dealings  of  the  Lords  Proprietors."  2  Governor  John 
son  was  requested  by  the  leaders  to  assume  the  government 
under  the  King,  and  when  he  refused  to  do  so,  the  assembly 
elected  by  his  writs  denied  the  authority  of  the  proprietors 
and  the  council,  and  called  themselves  "  the  Representatives 
of  the  People ;"  "  a  Convention,  delegated  by  the  People,  to 
prevent  the  utter  Ruin  of  this  Government,  if  not  the  loss  of 
the  Province,  until  His  Majesty's  Pleasure  be  known."  3  To 
this  Johnson  replied: 

"  It  is  not  the  People's  Voting  for  you,  that  makes  you  become  their 
Representatives ;  the  Leige  People  of  this,  nor  any  other  Province  have 
Power  to  convene  and  chuse  their  Representatives  without  being  author- 
iz'd  so  to  do  by  some  Writ  or  Order  coming  from  Authority  lawfully 
impower'd."  * 

Finding  Johnson  firm  in  his  intention  to  stand  by  the  pro 
prietary  rights,  the  Convention  elected  Colonel  James  Moore 
as  governor;  opposed  Johnson  by  force;  and  at  last  pro 
vided  for  an  election  of  councillors ;  "  so  they  had  now  their 
Governor,  Council,  and  Convention  (as  they  call'd  them 
selves)."5  By  this  armed  uprising  of  the  people  the  pro 
prietary  authority  in  the  colony  was  overthrown,  and  its 
place  was  taken  by  a  revolutionary  government  which 
looked,  not  in  vain,  to  the  English  government  for  recogni 
tion.  The  de  facto  subversion  of  the  proprietors'  govern 
ment  in  the  colony  in  1719  was  followed  by  a  de  jure  denial 
of  their  power  by  the  Crown's  officials  in  England,  and  by 

1  Carroll,  Collections,  II,  160. 

2  Ibid.,  165. 

3  Ibid.,  168-169. 

4  Ibid.,  176. 

6  Ibid.,  180-183. 


The  Suffrage  in  South  Carolina.  151 

the  appointment  of  a  royal  governor  and  a  provisional  gov 
ernment  in  September,  I72O.1 

Before  this  contest  had  reached  its  final  stage  still  another 
election  law  had  been  passed.2  This  act  of  March  20,  1718- 
19  expressed  in  strong  language  the  popular  satisfaction 
with  the  new  method  of  holding  elections : 

"  The  choosing  members  of  the  Commons  House  of  Assembly  for 
this  Province,  by  parishes  or  precincts,  had  been  found  by  experience 
to  be  the  most  easy,  just  and  least  expensive  and  hazardous  method 
that  can  be  devised  and  approaches  nearest  to  the  form  and  method  of 
choosing  or  electing  members  in  other  his  Majesty's  dominions  and 
plantations,  and  not  liable  to  the  inconveniences  that  attended  any  other 
method  heretofore  used  or  practised  in  this  Province." 

The  act  continued  the  suffrage  requirements  of  the  act  of 
1717,  but  it  strengthened  the  prohibition  upon  servants  by 
inserting  the  word  free  in  the  phrase  describing  the  voting 
class ;  thereby  limiting  the  franchise  to  "  every  free  white 
man  (and  no  other)/'  who  possessed  the  several  require 
ments  as  laid  down  in  the  former  act. 

The  property  qualifications  of  assemblymen  were  changed 
considerably.  The  representative  was  no  longer  required  to 
be  a  resident  of  the  district  he  represented,  nor  must  he  pos 
sess  the  necessary  property  within  the  district.  The  personal 
property  qualification  was,  however,  omitted,  and  the  new 
requirement  was  the  possession  within  the  province  of  a 
settled  plantation  of  five  hundred  acres  with  six  slaves  upon 
it,  or  one  thousand  pounds  value  in  houses,  buildings,  town 
lots,  or  other  lands  in  any  part  of  the  province.  The  method 
of  balloting  shows  clearly  that  provision  was  made  for  a 
secret  ballot: 

"  Each  person  qualified  to  vote  as  is  above  directed  shall  put  into  a 
box  or  sheet  of  paper  prepared  for  that  purpose  by  the  said  church 
wardens  or  other  persons,  as  is  above  directed,  a  piece  of  paper  rolled 
up,  wherein  is  written  the  name  of  the  Representatives  he  votes  for, 
and  to  which  paper  the  elector  shall  not  be  obliged  to  subscribe  his 
name." 

1  We  cannot  here  enter  into  the  English  side  of  this  story.     For  a 
full  account,  see  McCrady,  I,  665-673. 
1  Statutes  at  Large,  III,  50-55. 


152     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

A  few  other  minor  changes  were  made  particularly  in  the 
apportionment  of  representatives,  but  with  the  exception  of 
the  qualifications  of  assemblymen,  the  act  of  1718-19  fol 
lowed  closely  the  terms  of  the  act  of  1717.  The  opinions  so 
strongly  expressed  in  the  preamble  did  not  deter  the  pro 
prietors  from  still  further  opposing  public  sentiment,  and  on 
July  24,  1719,  they  write  that  they  "  can  by  no  means  con 
sent"  to  the  act.1  The  controversy  about  the  election  acts 
then  became  a  prominent  cause  of  the  revolution  of  1719, 
and  one  of  the  first  resolutions  which  the  "  convention" 
adopted  was  one  declaring  certain  of  the  repealed  acts  to  be 
still  in  force.2  In  February,  1719-20,  when  the  convention 
had  decided  that  they  were  again  an  assembly,  they  declared 
the  election  act  of  1718-19  to  be  in  force,3  and  it  was  so 
treated  until  formally  repealed  about  a  year  and  a  half  later. 

South  Carolina's  overthrow  of  the  proprietary  govern 
ment  was  thus  intimately  associated  with  the  right  of  free 
dom  of  elections.  After  1716,  the  assembly  was  engaged  in 
passing  many  important  economic  measures,  and  the  people 
of  the  province  undoubtedly  felt  that  these  measures  could 
not  be  attained  without  a  more  reasonable  process  of  elect 
ing  their  representatives.  The  people  could  not  be  ade 
quately  represented,  nor  could  the  elections  be  kept  free  from 
undue  influence  so  long  as  Charleston  was  the  only  polling- 
place.  In  South  Carolina,  as  in  Georgia,  a  true  representa 
tive  system  could  be  gained  only  by  overthrowing  the  per 
sonal  control  of  proprietors  or  trustees,  and  accepting  the 
royal  form  of  government,  in  which,  by  this  time,  a  definite 
and  adequate  system  of  representation  was  a  fundamental 
fact. 

The  provisional  royal  government  had  been  in  power  but 
a  short  time  when  still  another  election  law  was  passed,  and 
the  earlier  ones  repealed.  Governor  Nicholson's  instruc 
tions  4  may  have  tended  to  restrict  the  suffrage,  for  they  di 
rected  him  to  permit  freeholders  only  to  vote  for  represen- 

1  Statutes  at  Large,  III,  69. 

3  McCrady,  I,  649 ;    Hewatt,  I,  259. 

3  Statutes  at  Large,  III,  103 ;   act  of  February  12,  1719-20. 

4  Collections  S.   C.  Hist.   Soc.,  II,   145-147.     Analyzed  in  McCrady, 
History  of  South  Carolina  under  the  Royal  Government,  25-33. 


The  Suffrage  in  South  Carolina.  153 

tatives,  while  the  law  of  1718-19  had  given  the  right  to 
freeholders  of  fifty  acres,  or  persons  owning  taxable  prop 
erty  to  the  amount  of  fifty  pounds  current  money.  Nichol 
son's  first  assembly  in  September,  1721,  therefore,  revised 
the  election  laws,  changing  but  slightly  the  machinery  of 
election  or  the  qualifications  of  representatives,  but  imposing 
new  qualifications  upon  voters.1 

"  Every  free  white  man,  and  no  other  person,  professing  the  Chris 
tian  religion,  who  has  attained  to  the  age  of  one  and  twenty  years,  and 
hath  been  a  resident  and  an  inhabitant  in  this  Province  for  the  space 
of  one  whole  year  before  the  date  of  the  writs  for  the  election  he 
offers  to  give~TiTs~vol'e^~at,  and  hath  a  freehold  of  at  least  fifty  acres  of 
land,  or  hath  been  taxed  in  the  precedent  year  twenty  shillings,  or  is 
taxed  twenty  shillings  the  present  year,  to  the  support  of  this  Govern 
ment,  shall  be  deemed  a  person  qualified  to  vote  for,  and  may  be  capable 
of  electing  a  representative  or  representatives  to  serve  as  a  member  or 
members  of  the  Commons  House  of  Assembly,  for  the  parish  or  pre 
cinct  wherein  he  actually  is  a  resident,  or  in  any  other  parish  or  pre 
cinct  wherein  he  hath  the  like  qualifications." 

It  will  be  noticed  that  the  provisions  of  the  acts  of  1717 
and  1719  requiring  a  voter  to  be  a  resident  for  six  months  of 
the  parish  in  which  he  votes,  are  now  changed  to  a  require 
ment  of  a  residence  in  the  province  for  one  year.  The  fifty 
acres  freehold  is  still  retained;  but  the  fifty  pounds  taxable 
property  gives  place  to  the  annual  payment  of  twenty  shill 
ings  taxes. 

The  tax-paying  basis  for  the  suffrage  does  not  ostensibly 
conform  to  the  governor's  instructions  calling  for  elections 
by  the  freeholders;  but  an  inspection  of  the  tax-laws  of 
the  time  during  which  this  act  was  in  force  (1721-1745) 
shows  that  freeholders  or  slaveholders  were  practically  the 
only  taxpayers.  Thus  the  rates  of  1721  placed  a  levy  of  five 
shillings  upon  every  one  hundred  acres  of  land,  and  an  un 
certain  amount  upon  every  negro,  mulatto  or  Indian  slave.2 
A  person  who  paid  twenty  shillings  taxes  would  thus  own 
eight  times  the  minimum  amount  of  land  required  for  the 

1  Statutes  at  Large,  III,  135-140. 
2 1 'bid.,  149-157- 


154     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

suffrage,  or  else  be  a  slaveholder.1  In  1724  the  rates  were 
again  five  shillings  on  the  hundred  acres  of  land,  and  a  defi 
nite  tax  of  twenty  shillings  on  each  slave  between  the  years 
of  seven  and  sixty.2  This  act  shows  the  relative  values  of 
land  and  negroes,  for  it  practically  makes  one  slave  equiva 
lent  in  value  to  four  hundred  acres  of  land.  Down  to  1734, 
it  may  be  presumed  that  the  tax-paying  qualification  for  the 
suffrage  limited  that  privilege  to  landholders  and  slave 
holders.  After  1734  a  tax  on  mercantile  stocks  and  cash, 
and  later  upon  all  white  male  persons  was  laid ; 3  but  these 
do  not  appear  to  have  been  permanent.  In  1739  the  taxes 
are  only  ten  shillings  on  slaves  and  ten  shillings  on  every 
one  hundred  acres  of  land.4 

For  over  twenty  years  after  1721  the  election  act  re 
mained  unchanged.5  Governor  Johnson's  instructions  of 
1729  again  directed  that  the  assembly  should  be  elected  by 
the  freeholders ; 6  but  it  was  not  until  after  Governor  Glen's 
j  arrival  in  the  colony  that  any  change  was  made.  By  a  sub 
sequent  letter  Glen  shows  his  opposition  to  the  ballot  which 
had  been  a  part  of  South  Carolina's  elections  from  the  first ; 
and  he  may  have  been  the  author  or  proposer  of  the  measure 
which  limited  the  suffrage  in  1745.  The  act  of  May  25,  of 
that  year,  plainly  tells  its  purpfeiftn  the  title,  "  An  Act  for 
enlarging  the  qualifications  of  the  Electors,  as  well  as  of 
the  Persons  to  be  elected  to  serve  as  Members  of  the  General 
Assembly  of  this  Province."  7 

Beyond  the  purposes  given  in  the  preamble  of  this  act,  I 

'The  act  provided  for  the  raising  of  £17,248  6d.  by  a  tax  of  five 
shillings  on  each  one  hundred  acres  of  land ;  and  a  pro  rata  assessment 
of  the  remainder  upon  all  the  negro,  Indian,  Mustee,  and  mulatto 
.slaves  between  the  years  of  seven  and  sixty. 

2  Act  of  May  24,  1724,  Statutes  at  Large,  III,  238-245. 

8  Statutes  at  Large,  III,  386,  438. 

4/Wd.,  527- 

6  It  has  been  said  that  the  act  of  1721  was  disallowed  in  1730;  but  if 
such  is  the  case,  the  disallowance  was  not  recognized  in  the  colony; 
E.  L.  Whitney,  The  Government  of  the  Colony  of  South  Carolina,  J. 
H.  U.  Studies,  XIII,  49- 

8  McCrady,  II,  93. 

1  Statutes  at  Large,  III,  656. 


The  Suffrage  in  South  Carolina.  155 

have  found  no  reason  for  its  passage.  We  are  told  that  "  it 
may  be  of  evil  consequence  to  give  a  right  to  any  person  or 
persons  to  vote  .  .  .  who  are  late  residents,  and  are  not 
possessed  of  a  sufficient  freehold  and  personal  estate,  and  it 
may  be  of  equal  detriment  to  admit  any  person  or  persons  to 
serve  as  Members  of  Assembly  who  are  not  amply  quali 
fied."  The  act  is,  therefore,  passed  for  "  the  augmenting 
and  enlarging  the  qualifications"  of  both  elected  and  elect 
ors.  The  "  augmentation"  consisted  in  changing  the  quali 
fication  from  the  holding  of  fifty  acres  of  freehold  or  the 
payment  of  twenty  shillings  taxes,  to  the  following  form : 

"  Every  free  white  man,  and  no  other  person,  professing  the  Chris 
tian  religion,  who  has  attained  to  the  age  of  twenty-one  years,  and  hath 
been  a  resident  and  inhabitant  in  this  Province  for  the  space  of  one 
year  before  the  date  of  the  writs  issued  for  that  election  for  which  he 
offers  to  give  his  vote  at,  and  hath  a  freehold  estate  in  a  settled  planta 
tion,  or  not  less  than  three  hundred  acres  of  land  unsettled,  for  which 
he  paid  tax  the  precedent  year,  or  hath  a  freehold  in  houses,  lands  or 
town  lots,  or  parts  thereof,  of  the  value  of  sixty  pounds  proclamation 
money,  in  Charleston,  or  any  other  town  in  this  Province,  for  which 
he  paid  tax  the  precedent  year%  shall  be  deemed  a  person  qualified  to 
vote  for  and  is  hereby  declared  capable  of  joining  in  the  election  for  a 
representative  or  representatives  to  serve  as  a  member  or  members  of 
the  Assembly  for  that  parish  or  precinct  wherein  he  is  actually  a  resi 
dent,  or  in  any  other  parish  or  precinct  where  he  hath  the  like  qualifi 
cations." 

The  radical  nature  of  the  changes  introduced  by  this  act 
can  be  seen  when  it  is  noticed,  that,  for  the  first  time  since 
1692,  the  suffrage  is  placed  solely  upon  a  freehold  basis,  a 
policy  which  the  act  of  1759  reversed.  Again,  this  free 
hold 'requisite  was  now  considerably  "  augmented;"  the  sim 
ple  fifty  acres  being  replaced  by  either  (i)  a  settled  plan 
tation,  or  (2)  unsettled  but  taxable  land  to  the  amount  of 
three  hundred  acres,  or  (3)  other  forms  of  real  estate  to  the 
value  of  sixty  pounds  proclamation  money.1  These  pro 
visions  must  have  raised  the  qualifications  to  about  five  or 

*£ioo  sterling  was  worth  about  £133  proclamation  money;  while  at 
this  time  (1745)  the  South  Carolina  currency  was  circulating  at  the 
ratio  of  £700  currency  to  £100  sterling  (Hewatt,  II,  14). 


156     The  Suffrage  Franchise  m  the  English  Colonies. 

six  times  what  they  had  previously  been.  I  have  found  no 
facts  to  show  to  what  extent  they  cut  down  the  actual  num 
ber  of  voters,  but,  especially  in  Charleston,  the  act  must  have 
excluded  some  of  the  poorer  electors. 

The  aristocratic  features  of  the  act  were  further  increased 
by  permitting  plural  voting,  and  giving  the  freeholder  a  vote 
in  any  parish  in  which  he  was  properly  qualified.1  The  same 
tendency  is  seen  in  the  higher  qualifications  of  representa 
tives,  who  were  now  required  to  possess  a  settled  plantation 
or  freehold  of  five  hundred  acres  of  land  with  twenty  slaves, 
over  and  above  all  indebtedness,  or  value  of  one  thousand 
pounds  proclamation  money  in  houses,  lots  or  other  lands  in 
the  province  clear  of  all  debts.  The  passage  of  such  a  law 
is  evidence  of  a  decided  increase  in  the  economic  well-being 
of  the  governing  classes,  for  it  is  unlikely  the  assembly 
would  pass  such  a  law  unless  they  expected  the  approval  of 
their  constituents.  It  is  proof,  too,  that  the  artisan  and  mer 
cantile  classes  of  the  town  were  politically  insignificant ;  and 
furnishes  indirect  evidence  of  the  truth  of  Hewatt's  state 
ment  that  the  merchants,  artisans,  and  tradesmen  established 
themselves  upon  plantations  in  the  country  as  soon  as  they 
had  accumulated  sufficient  capital  to  buy  the  necessary  slaves 
and  lands.2  The  act  is  a  result,  not  a  cause,  of  the  economic 
and  political  predominance  of  the  planter  in  South  Carolina 
life. 

Whatever  may  have  been  Governor  Glen's  share  in  the 
passage  of  this  election  law,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  he 
was  opposed  to  the  democratic  secret  ballot  of  South  Caro 
lina,  and  wished  to  displace  it  by  the  English  method  of  viva 
voce  voting.  Writing  to  the  English  authorities  he  urges 
the  abolition  of  many  elective  offices  in  both  church  and 
state;  and  said  that  the  colony  would  be  safer  the  closer  it 
adhered  "  to  the  customs  at  home."  Elections  by  ballot 
should  also  be  avoided  because  "  any  person  who  attends  the 

1  It  is  said  that  large  property  owners  took  advantage  of  this  clause 
to  vote  in  several  parishes ;  and  that  the  practice  later  resulted  in  sec 
tional  controversy  between  the  low  country  and  the  uplands.  See  W. 
A.  Schafer,  Sectionalism  and  Representation  in  South  Carolina,  Amer. 
Hist.  Assn.  Report,  1900,  I,  352. 

*  See  Hewatt,  II,  127-130. 


The  Suffrage  in  South  Carolina.  157 

balloting  box,  may  with  a  very  little  slight  of  hand,  give  the 
election  to  whom  he  pleases."  1  He  further  criticised  the 
method  of  apportionment  of  representatives  by  which  some 
places  received  no  representation  and  others  obtained  far 
more  than  their  just  share.  So  far  as  we  can  see  these 
propositions  of  Governor  Glen's  were  without  result. 

Only  one  more  election  law  was  passed  between  1745  and 
the  Revolution.  This  was  the  act  of  April  7,  I759,2  which 
changed  the  suffrage  in  the  direction  of  a  wider  electorate. 
The  preamble  to  this  act  was  similar  to  that  of  the  act  of 
1745,  and  gives  no  hint  to  the  reader  that  the  law  may  bring 
about  an  extension  of  the  suffrage.  The  section  defining  the 
qualifications  of  electors  is  more  elaborate  than  any  hereto 
fore  adopted. 

"  From  and  after  the  determination  of  this  present  General  Assem 
bly,  every  free  white  man,  and  no  other  person,  professing  the  Prot- 
__est<yit  religion,  who  shall  have  obtained  the  age  of  twenty-one  years, 
and  shall  have  been  a  resident  and  inhabitant  in  this  Province  for  the 
space  of  one  year,  at  any  time  before  the  date  of  the  writ  to  be  issued 
for  that  election  at  which  he  shall  offer  to  give  his  vote,  and  shall  have 
a  freehold  estate  in  a  settled  plantation^  or  not  less  than  one  hundred 
acres  of  land  unsettled,  for  which  he  shall  have  paid  tax  the  preceding 
year,  or  shall  have  a  freehold  estate  in  houses,  lands  or  town  lots  or 
parts  thereof,  of  the  value  of  sixty  pounds  proclamation  money  situate 
in  Charleston,  or  any  other  town  in  this  Province,  for  which  he  shall 
have  paid  tax  the  preceding  year,  or  shall  have  paid  the  sum  of  ten 
shillings  proclamation  money  for  his  own  proper  tax  the  preceding  year, 
shall  be  deemed  a  person  qualified  to  vote  for,  and  is  hereby  declared 
capable  of  voting  at  the  election  of,  a  representative  or  representatives, 
to  serve  as  a  member  or  members  of  the  Assembly,  for  the  parish  or 
precinct  where  such  elector  shall  be  actually  resident,  or  for  any  other 
parish  or  precinct  where  he  shall  have  the  like  qualifications." 

The  most  striking  innovation  of  the  act  is  the  substitution 
of  the  word  "  Protestant"  for  "  Christian"  used  in  all  the 
earlier  laws.  We  are  again,  unfortunately,  left  without  any 
reason  for  the  change,  and  it  seems  the  more  remarkable 
that  the  exclusion  of  Catholics  from  the  suffrage  should 

1  Collections  of  S.  C.  Hist.  Soc.,  II,  305. 

2  Statutes  at  Large,  IV,  98-101. 


158     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

come  at  such  a  late  time.  Such  treatment  has  been  noticed 
in  many  of  the  other  colonies,  but  in  them  it  came  early  in 
the  eighteenth  century,  when  the  restoration  of  the  exiled 
Stuarts  was  not  yet  considered  an  impossibility. 

In  South  Carolina  in  1759  there  could  be  no  fear  of  the 
Stuarts,  but  a  number  of  Catholics  had  about  two  years 
earlier  been  brought  into  the  province.  It  may  be  that  the 
act  was  directed  against  these  French  Acadians,  who  had 
been  dispersed  by  the  English  government,  and  over  a  thou 
sand  of  whom  arrived  at  the  port  of  Charleston ; 1  but  of  this 
I  have  found  no  proof. 

Important  changes  were  also  made  in  the  property  quali- 
'fications  of  voters.  .Four  alternatives  were  now  offered  to 
tfce  prospectivejyoter ;  "he  might  vote  by  virtue  of  the  owner 
ship  of  a  settled  plantation  as  formerly;  or  by  owning  one 
hundred  acres  of  unsettled  taxable  lands  in  place  of  the 
earlier  three  hundred  acres ;  or  on  account  of  sixty  pounds 
value  in  proclamation  money  of  houses,  lots  or  lands  in  any 
town  in  the  province;  or  by  virtue  of  the  payment  of  ten 
shillings  (proclamation  money)  taxes  during  the  preceding 
year.  The  country  franchise  was  thus  extended  by  lower 
ing  the  alternative  qualification  from  three  hundred  to  one 
hundred  acres  of  freehold;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is 
likely  the  suffrage  among  the  town  population  was  extended 
by  permitting  those  paying  a  certain  amount  of  taxes  to  vote 
in  the  assembly  elections.  Looking  at  the  tax-assessments 
at  about  this  time,  it  is  to  be  noticed  that  the  earlier  restric 
tion  of  taxes  to  slaves  and  land  is  not  retained;  but  in  1758, 
in  addition  to  taxing  slaves  thirty-six  shillings  each  and 
land  at  the  same  amount  for  each  one  hundred  acres ;  a  tax 
of  eighteen  shillings  was  also  assessed  upon  every  one  hun 
dred  pounds  at  interest,  four  per  cent,  of  the  income  was 
levied  upon  annuities,  and  cattle,  when  a  person  owned  over 
thirty,  were  taxed  two  shillings  and  six  pence  a  head.2  In 
proclamation  money  these  taxes  would  be  only  one-fifth  the 
amounts  stated  in  the  law.  Yet  making  allowance  for  the 
difference  in  the  value  in  money,  it  is  evident  that  the  ten 
shillings  tax  would  open  the  suffrage  to  some  persons,  par- 


1  McCrady,  II,  326.    See  also  Statutes  at  Large,  IV,  31. 

2  Act  of  May  19,  1758 ;    Statutes  at  Large,  IV,  54. 


The  Suffrage  in  South  Carolina.  159 

ticularly  in  the  towns,  who  did  not  possess  the  necessary 
freehold  qualification. 

It  has  been  said  that  the  causes  for  the  passage  of  the  law 
of  1759  have  not  been  found  by  the  writer.  It  is  interesting 
to  note,  however,  that  only  three  years  later,  the  Virginia 
legislature  also  passed  an  act  which  extended  the  suffrage; 
and  the  questions  naturally  arise,  whether  there  were  any 
conditions  in  the  southern  colonies  in  the  fifteen  years  pre 
ceding  the  Revolution  which  called  for  an  extension  of  the 
suffrage,  and  if  so,  in  what  way  this  extension  of  the  suf 
frage  affected  the  revolutionary  movement  in  that  part  of  the 
country  ?  The  records  are  not  yet  available  for  the  prepara 
tion  of  answers  to  these  questions. 

Little  need  be  said  concerning  the  local  suffrage  of  South 
Carolina,  for,  apart  from  the  parish  officers,  there  were  ab 
solutely  no  local  elective  officials.  An  instruction  of  May, 
1671,  had  provided  for  the  monthly  election  by  the  inhabi 
tants  of  every  town  of  "  one  or  two  of  ye  discreetest  men" 
to  "  truck  wth  ye  Indians  for  Beades;"  1  but  this  regular  ap 
portionment  of  the  Indian  trade  does  not  appear  to  have 
been  made.  In  1697  the  proprietors  proposed  the  erection 
of  Charleston  into  a  municipal  corporation,2  but  such  a  step 
was  not  taken  until  almost  ninety  years  later,  when  both  the 
proprietary  and  royal  governments  had  been  displaced.3 
Under  both  of  these  governments  the  affairs  of  Charleston 
were  controlled  by  commissioners  appointed  by  acts  of  the 
legislature,  vacancies  in  whose  numbers  were  sometimes 
filled  by  themselves  or  by  the  appointment  of  the  governor.4 
Local  officers  to  look  after  roads,  bridges,  and  the  naviga 
tion  of  small  streams  were  appointed  in  the  same  way.5 

It  was  in  the  parish  alone,  therefore,  that  any  popular 
election  for  local  officials  took  place,  and  this  parish  election 
system  was  a  remarkably  liberal  one.  Instead  of  the  perma 
nent  close  corporation  of  the  Virginia  parish,  the  South 

fivers,  Sketch,  Appendix,  368. 
2  Collections  S.  C.  Hist.  Soc.,  I,  142. 

1  The  city  was  incorporated  in  1783  by  act  of  legislature ;    see  Statutes 
at  Large,  VII,  97. 

*  Statutes  at  Large,  VII,  53,  55,  59,  74,  89. 
6  Ibid.,  478,  480,  485,  495 ;   IX,  49-57,  163,  184,  190,  203,  229,  246,  etc. 


160     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

Carolina  vestrymen  were  chosen  annually,  and  the  ministers 
were  elected  by  the  people  and  not  by  the  vestry.  Parishes 
in  South  Carolina  were  erected  by  the  act  of  I7O4,1  entitled 
"  An  Act  for  the  Establishment  of  Religious  Worship  in 
this  Province,  according  to  the  Church  of  England,  and  for 
the  erecting  of  Churches  for  the  Publick  Worship  of  God, 
and  Ministers  and  the  building  convenient  Houses  for 
them."  The  electors,  both  of  the  ministers  and  vestrymen, 
were  to  be  conformists  to  the  Church  of  England,  inhabi 
tants  of  the  parish,  and  either  freeholders  or  taxpayers  of 
the  parish. 

"  The  severall  rectors  or  ministers  of  the  severall  parishes  shall  be 
chosen  by  the  major  part  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  said  parish,  that  are 
of  the  religion  of  the  Church  of  England  and  conform  to  the  same, 
and  are  either  freeholders  within  the  same  parish,  or  that  contribute 
to  the  publick  taxes  and  charges  thereof."  2 

No  change  in  this  method  of  electing  vestrymen  or  ministers 
was  made  by  the  great  Church  Act  of  I7o6,3  nor  by  the  sub 
sequent  acts  relating  to  the  subject  during  the  colonial 
period.  The  suffrage  here  was  broader  than  in  Maryland, 
where  an  elector  must  be  a  tax-paying  freeholder  of  the 
parish ;  but  it  did  not  differ  much  from  the  freeholders  and 
housekeepers  of  the  Virginia  parish  elections.  The  most 
marked  distinction  between  the  South  Carolina  vestry  and 
those  of  her  neighbors  was  in  the  fact  of  its  annual  election ; 
and  this  proved  a  most  desirable  feature,  by  which  the  in 
conveniences,  carelessness  and  even  corruption  of  the  North 
Carolina,  Virginia,  and  Maryland  vestries  were  avoided. 
To  this  annual  election  of  vestrymen  and  the  popular  elec 
tion  of  ministers  much  of  the  strength  of  the  South  Caro 
lina  church  has  been  attributed;  but  there  can  be  no  doubt 
that  other  economic  and  religious  influences  aided  what 
would  otherwise  have  been  only  a  piece  of  ecclesiastical 
machinery.  Perhaps  the  feature  which  made  the  South 
Carolina  vestry  government  so  successful  as  compared  with 

1  Act  of  November  4,  1704,  Statutes  at  Large,  II,  236-246. 

2  Ibid.,  239. 

3  Act  of  November  30,  1706,  Statutes  at  Large,  II,  282-294. 


The  Suffrage  in  South  Carolina.  161 

that  of  North  Carolina  or  Virginia  was  the  fact  that  only 
members  of  the  Church  of  England  could  vote  for  vestry 
men  or  ministers. 

In  conclusion,  then,  we  may  summarize  the  suffrage  pro-~y 
visions  here  noticed.  South  Carolina  began  with  an  elector-  / 
ate,  which,  on  account  of  the  ease  of  securing  land,  was 
practically  synonymous  with  free  manhood.  Some  mer 
chants  and  artisans  later  settled  in  the  colony,  particularly 
in  Charleston,  and  a  tax-paying  or  personal  property  quali-  / 
fication  was  made  an  alternative  with  the  freehold  basis. 
From  1692  onward,  with  the  exception  of  the  interval  from 
1745  to  1759,  the  laws  were  so  worded  that  landless  men 
might  vote,  if  they  paid  sufficient  taxes  or  owned  a  certain 
amount  of  personal  property.  Perhaps  unconsciously,  the 
proprietors  at  first  encouraged  popular  elections,  by  their 
anxiety  to  establish  a  parliament  in  the  form  provided  for 
in  the  fundamental  constitutions.  Later  they  opposed  a 
more  popular  elective  system,  and  for  this  reason  as  well  as 
others  lost  their  province.  The  suffrage  question  comes 
very  prominently  to  the  front  in  colonial  politics  in  South 
Carolina.  On  three  occasions  it  is  the  principal  theme  be 
fore  the  people;  first  in  the  last  decade  of  the  seventeenth 
century  in  connection  with  the  political  status  of  the  Hugue 
nots  ;  secondly,  in  the  first  decade  of  the  eighteenth  century 
when  it  took  the  form  of  irregularities  in  elections  and  an 
attempt  to  establish  religious  qualifications  of  representa 
tives;  and,  thirdly,  in  1716-1719,  when  there  arose  a  popu 
lar  demand  for  a  method  of  election  which  would  permit  a 
more  accurate  representation  of  the  community.  Under  the 
royal  government  the  suffrage  franchise  did  not  become  a 
cause  of  popular  excitement.  Three  great  laws  were  passed 
bearing  upon  the  subject,  those  of  1721,  1745,  1759;  but 
these  laws  do  not  appear  to  have  been  the  result  of  popular 
clamor  or  interest. 

The  voter  throughout  the  whole  period  must  be  a  male 
person  over  twenty-one  years  of  age;  after  1716  he  must 
be  of  the  Christian  religion,  and  of  the  white  race.  In  1717 
apprentices  and  servants  were  prohibited  from  voting,  and 
in  1718-19  the  word  "free"  was  inserted  before  "white 
man;"  while  in  1759  the  word  "Protestant"  was  substi- 

ii 


1 62     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

tuted  for  "  Christian."  Before  1696-97  there  was  appar 
ently  no  residence  qualification  upon  voters,  but  from  that 
year  a  residence  of  three  months  was  required.  This  was 
raised  to  six  months  in  1716  and  to  one  year  in  1719,  at 
which  point  it  remained  throughout  the  colonial  period.  The 
property  qualification  of  fifty  acres  freehold  prescribed  by 
the  fundamental  constitutions  may  have  been  observed  in 
the  early  years;  but  from,  1692  to  1716  the  elector  was  per 
mitted  an  alternative  of  the  ten  pounds  property  (presum 
ably  real  or  personal).  In  the  latter  year  the  requirement 
was  simply  thirty  pounds  current  money,  but  in  1717  this 
was  changed  to  fifty  acres  of  land  or  fifty  pounds  currency 
value  in  taxable  property;  and  the  latter  alternative  was 
again  changed  in  1718-19  to  the  payment  of  a  tax  of  twenty 
shillings.  In  1745  the  tax-paying  basis  is  abolished,  and  the 
fifty  acres  gives  place  to  a  settled  plantation  or  three  hun 
dred  acres  of  unsettled  land  or  sixty  pounds  proclamation 
money  value  in  town  houses  or  lands.  Lastly,  in  1759  the 
unsettled  freehold  was  cut  down  to  one  hundred  acres,  and 
the  tax-paying  basis  was  restored. 

The  student  of  the  suffrage  in  this  colony  is  impressed  by 
the  breadth  of  the  suffrage  in  a  community  which  possessed 
so  many  features  of  economic  aristocracy.  Frequent  popu 
lar  elections  both  in  church  and  state  were  open  to  the  free 
holders  and  taxpayers  of  the  colony  upon  a  comparatively 
broad  basis.  And  these  elections,  at  first  perhaps  conducted 
by  the  subscribing  of  names  to  one  sheet  of  paper  or  by 
proxy  voting,  soon  came  to  be  determined  solely  by  written 
paper  ballots  deposited  by  the  voter  himself  in  some  crude 
form  of  a  ballot-box.  The  viva  voce  voting  of  the  free 
holder  of  New  York  or  Virginia  here  gives  way  to  the 
democratic  ballot  of  the  South  Carolina  taxpayer. 


CHAPTER    VI. 
THE  SUFFRAGE  IN  GEORGIA. 

Peculiar  circumstances  attended  the  settlement  of  Geor 
gia.  The  experience  of  the  recent  Indian  and  Spanish  wars 
had  demonstrated  the  weakness  of  the  southern  frontier,1 
and  a  plan  which  would  populate  this  border  land  with  Eng 
lish  paupers  and  debtors,  thus  serving  both  utilitarian  and 
charitable  purposes,  commended  itself  to  the  Crown  as 
"  highly  becoming."  As  so  frequently  the  case  in  philan 
thropic  enterprises,  the  recipients  of  the  charity  in  Georgia 
were  expected  passively  to  take  what  was  given,  and  Oliver 
Twists  were  not  included  in  the  calculations  of  Oglethorpe 
or  the  other  trustees.  Thus  it  happened  that  a  type  of  gov 
ernment  similar  to  the  petty  military  despotism  in  Old  Vir 
ginia  was  established  in  another  colony  a  century  and  a  quar 
ter  after  the  Virginia  settlement  was  made. 

The  royal  charter  of  June  9,  1732,  placed  the  colony  in 
the  control  of  the  twenty  trustees  and  their  associates  or 
successors,  who,  in  their  legislative  powers,  were  restricted 
only  by  the  necessity  of  submitting  their  laws  for  approval 
to  the  king  in  council,  and  the  limitation  that  the  laws,  con 
stitutions  or  ordinances  be  not  repugnant  to  the  laws  of 
England.2  During  the  term  of  twenty-one  years,  all  persons 
in  the  colony  were  to  be  subject  to  laws  made  in  this  man 
ner.  The  corporation  had  the  right  for  the  same  period  to 
appoint  such  governors,  judges,  magistrates  or  other  civil 
and  military  officers  as  were  thought  fit  and  needful ;  at  the 
end  of  twenty-one  years  the  colony  should  be  given  a  form 
of  government  and  manner  of  passing  laws  determined  by 
the  king,  and  receive  a  governor  appointed  by  the  Crown.3 

Under  the  terms  of  this  charter  the  settlers  received  a 

1  Preamble  to  Georgia  charter,  Poore,  Charters  and  Constitutions,  I, 
369- 

3  Ibid.,  373-374- 
'Ibid.,  377- 

163 


164     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

surfeit  of  paternal  legislation.  The  trustees  met  in  London 
in  July,  1732,  to  begin  the  work  of  organizing  the  colony,1 
and  in  the  rules  for  settlement  they  never  lost  sight  of  the 
military  purpose  of  the  colony.  The  settlers  were  provided 
with  tools  and  arms;  their  land  allotments  were  to  be  laid 
out  in  the  neighborhood  of  towns  and  must  not  exceed  fifty 
acres  in  amount  for  each  family;  the  lands  were  held  on  a 
military  tenure,  and  to  make  this  sure,  they  were  entailed  in 
the  male  line.  The  land  must  be  cultivated  within  twelve 
months  after  the  grant,  and  the  settler  was  required  to  plant 
at  least  one  hundred  white  mulberry  trees  for  every  ten 
acres  that  he  cleared,2  in  order  to  encourage  the  silk  culture, 
which  was  a  favorite  project  of  the  trustees.  Slavery  was 
forbidden  because  it  might  injure  the  poor  free  laborers,  and 
a  little  later  the  manufacture  or  trade  in  rum  or  brandy  was 
prohibited.3 

The  colony  which  settled  at  Savannah  in  1733  was  under 
the  control  of  Oglethorpe.  No  provision  was  made  for  a 
general  organization  of  the  colony  except  in  his  person.  A 
town  court  composed  of  three  bailiffs  and  a  recorder  assisted 
by  two  constables  and  two  tithingmen  was  established  for 
Savannah  before  the  expedition  left  England,4  but  this  court 
possessed  only  judicial  powers,  while  all  other  governmental 
authority  rested  in  their  leader.  It  is  difficult  to  define  the 
authority  so  exercised,  for  it  extended  to  any  economic, 
political  or  military  policy  which  seemed  necessary  to  Ogle 
thorpe.  There  can  be  no  question  that  in  the  main  he  used 
the  authority  with  discretion,  and  on  some  occasions  even 
called  meetings  of  the  inhabitants  to  discuss  the  affairs  of  the 
colony.5  But  generally  he  issued  orders  as  would  a  mili 
tary  commander,  without  consultation  with  any  one.6  Such 
action,  while  it  may  have  been  necessary,  often  led  to  dis 
content  among  those  who  felt  themselves  injured  by  it.7 

1  Hugh  M'Call,  The  History  of  Georgia,  I,  16. 

2  Ibid.,  22. 

z  Ibid.,  25,  29. 

4  Collections  of  Georgia  Historical  Society,  I,  95,  177;    II,  282. 

*  Ibid.,  II,  in,  239. 

9  Ibid.,  109;    III,  73- 

7 Ibid.,  II,  146-149;    Stevens,  History  of  Georgia,  I.  220-222. 


ELEY,  CAUrORNJ A 


The  Suffrage  in  Georgia.  165 

The  single  town  court  of  Savannah  was  later  joined  by  a 
second  one  at  Frederica,1  and  both  were  supported  by  ap 
propriations  from  the  Trustees'  treasury.2  The  officials  of 
these  courts  were  appointed  by  the  Trustees,  while  the 
settlers  exercised  no  share  whatever  in  their  government.3 
Next  to  Oglethorpe,  by  far  the  most  powerful  man  in  the 
colony,  was  the  keeper  of  the  Trustees'  store,  from  which 
supplies  were  distributed  to  the  inhabitants.  This  officer, 
sometimes  also  holding  the  position  of  bailiff  of  Savannah, 
possessed  almost  the  power  of  life  and  death  over  the 
settlers;  and  he  is  described  by  one  grand  jury  as  having 
"  the  dangerous  power  in  his  hands  of  alluring  weak-minded 
people,  to  comply  with  unjust  measures,  and  also  overawing 
others,  from  making  just  complaints  and  representations"  to 
the  Trustees.4 

Oglethorpe's  personal  government  continued  until  1741, 
when  the  Trustees  divided  the  province  into  two  counties, 
established  a  president  and  four  assistants  as  a  governing 
board  at  Savannah,  and  promised  the  same  form  of  gov 
ernment  for  Frederica.5  But  Oglethorpe  retained  his  per 
sonal  control  of  affairs  in  the  south  along  the  Spanish 
frontier,  and  the  Frederica  county  organization  was  never  es 
tablished.  Upon  the  General's  return  to  England,  the  presi 
dent  and  assistants  at  Savannah  were,  in  1743,  declared  the 
supreme  political  authority  for  the  whole  colony ; 6  and  in 
this  form  the  government  continued  until  the  surrender  to 
the  Crown.  Throughout  the  period  of  trusteeship  there 
were  no  regular  elections,  either  for  local  or  general  officers, 
and  no  lawful  representative  system  whatever. 

But  if  the  Trustees  did  not  grant  a  popular  government, 
they  could  not  prevent  occasional  meetings  of  the  settlers,, 
nor  could  they  stifle  the  petitions  of  Englishmen  seeking 
redress  of  grievances.  Both  the  charity-settlers  and  the 

1  Coll.  Ga.  Hist.  Soc.,  II,  95,  292. 

•Ibid.,  II,  307;    III,  90.     Augusta  may  have  received  one  magistrate 
(ibid.,  II,  95). 

3  Ibid.,  II,  160-161,  202,  233,  282. 
*  Ibid.,  141,  233. 

B  Stevens,  I,  224-225 ;   Jones,  History  of  Georgia,  I,  416. 
8  Stevens,  I.  226. 


1 66     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

volunteers  found  themselves  narrowly  hedged  in  by  the 
theoretical  rules  of  the  Trustees  respecting  land  tenures,  quit- 
rents,  the  silk  culture,  the  rum  traffic,  and  the  use  of  negro 
slaves.  The  multitude  of  grievances  might,  in  other  col 
onies  where  the  danger  of  Spanish  or  Indian  warfare  did 
not  exist,  and  where  the  Trustees'  store  did  not  dispense 
its  blessings,  have  led  to  actual  rebellion;  but  here  it  pro 
duced  a  great  emigration  to  South  Carolina,  and  called  forth 
a  crop  of  protests,  petitions  and  representations  to  the  Eng 
lish  authorities. 

In  the  preparation  of  these  petitions  the  colonists  fre 
quently  used  the  old  English  institution  of  the  grand  jury, 
which  was  as  near  as  they  ever  reached  to  a  legal  represen 
tative  body.  At  other  times  the  protests  were  the  fruit  of 
simple  gatherings  of  the  freeholders  and  inhabitants.  In 
July,  1735,  only  two  years  after  the  settlement,  the  free 
holders  signed  a  petition  representing  to  the  Trustees  the 
expensiveness  of  white  servants,  the  profitableness  of  negro 
slavery,  and  protesting  against  the  acts  of  the  store-keeper, 
who  had  ruled  all  the  other  magistrates,  so  that  they  became 
"  in  a  manner  but  ciphers."  *  In  1737  the  grand  jury  again 
protested  against  the  acts  of  the  store-keeper,  Thomas  Caus- 
ton;  they  asked  for  more  servants,  and  particularly  they 
pointed  out  "  the  many  inconveniences,  for  want  of  a  body 
of  the  laws  and  constitutions  of  this  province."2  In  1738 
a  still  stronger  movement  led  to  the  signing  of  a  petition 
by  117  freeholders  and  settlers,  praying  for  a  modification 
of  the  land  system  and  for  the  admission  of  negro  slaves;  3 
and  in  1740,  twenty-four  of  the  "  most  respectable"  settlers 
petitioned  for  the  privilege  of  introducing  slaves.4 

The  popular  dissatisfaction  reached  a  higher  plane  of 
organization  in  1741.  On  the  seventh  of  October,  of  that 
year,  a  meeting  "  of  Landholders,  Settlers  and  Inhabitants" 
was  held  at  Savannah  to  discuss  their  grievances  and  the 
best  mode  of  obtaining  redress.  The  assembly  appointed 
Thomas  Stevens  as  agent  to  represent  the  facts  to  various 

1  Coll  Ga.  Hist.  Soc.,  II,  200-201 ;    Stevens,  I,  290. 

a  Coll.  Ga.  Hist.  Soc.,  II,  141,  211;    Stevens,  I,  290. 

s  Coll.  Ga.  Hist.  Soc.,  II,  217-222 ;    Stevens,  I,  279,  295,  297. 

4  Stevens,  I,  291. 


The  Suffrage  in  Georgia.  167 

officials  in  England,  and  then  selected  a  committee  of  corre 
spondence  composed  of  five  persons.  The  proceedings  of 
this  meeting  are  signed  by  123  persons,  and  letters  favoring 
its  actions  were  received  from  eighteen  absentees.1  In  the 
instructions  which  the  committee  of  correspondence  gave  to 
the  agent,  he  was  told  to  solicit  "  That  a  regular  govern 
ment  be  established  in  Georgia,  as  in  other  of  his  Majesty's 
provinces  in  America,"  2  as  well  as  the  various  economic 
reforms  which  had  been  previously  demanded. 

Gradually  some  of  the  reforms  were  granted.  The  new 
general  government  under  president  and  assistants  was  an 
improvement  over  the  local  courts ;  the  land  laws  were  soon 
made  less  strict;  and  the  prohibition  of  the  rum  trade  was 
removed.  Even  the  prohibition  of  slavery,  the  last  ideal  of 
the  Trustees,  was  broken  down  by  the  hiring  of  slaves  on 
long  term  leases  from  their  Carolina  owners.3  Yet  an  ac 
count  published  in  London  in  1743  said  the  colony  was  a 
failure,  and  gave  a  list  of  the  causes  for  its  ill-success.4 
These  were  said  to  be  ( I )  the  too  flattering  descriptions  of 
the  land  circulated  in  Europe;  (2)  the  entailment  of  estates 
in  the  male  line;  (3)  restrictions  upon  the  sale  of  lands;  (4) 
restrictions  upon  the  size  of  land  grants;  (5)  the  various  re 
quirements  with  respect  to  the  clearing,  fencing  and  plant 
ing  of  lands;  (6)  higher  quit-rents  than  the  richest  lands 
in  America  could  bear;  (7)  the  prohibition  of  negro  labor; 
and  certain  political  disadvantages  which  were  expressed  as 
follows : 

"8.  The  denying  us  the  privilege  of  being  judged  by  the  laws  of  our 
mother  country;  and  subjecting  the  lives  and  fortunes  of  all  people  in 
the  colony  to  one  person  or  set  of  men,  who  assumed  the  privilege, 
under  the  name  of  a  Court  of  Chancery,  of  acting  according  to  their 
own  will  and  fancy. 

"  9.  General  Oglethorpe's  taking  upon  him  to  nominate  magistrates, 
appoint  justices  of  the  peace,  and  to  do  many  other  such  things,  with- 

*Coll.  Ga.  Hist.  Soc.,  II,  153-154;    Stevens,  I,  300;   Jones,  I,  416. 
*Coll.  Ga.  Hist.  Soc.,  II,  155. 

8  For  this  gradual   introduction  of  negroes,   see  M'Call,   I,  206  f f. ; 
Stevens,  I,  285-312. 
4  Coll.  Ga.  Hist.  Soc.,  II,  262-263. 


1 68     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

out  ever  exhibiting  to  the  people  any  legal  commission  or  authority 
for  so  doing."  1 

Popular  elections  and  a  representative  system  at  last  de 
veloped  out  of  the  widespread  desire  for  the  introduction  of 
slavery.  Early  in  1749  another  public  meeting  had  been 
held,  and  another  petition  praying  for  liberty  to  introduce 
slaves  was  drawn  up.  The  president  and  assistants  called 
in  some  of  "  the  principal  People  of  the  Colony,"  2  and  upon 
their  advice  drew  up  the  petition  and  a  set  of  proposed  regu 
lations  governing  the  slave  system.  The  petition  was  signed 
by  the  president,  assistants  and  many  of  the  inhabitants,  and 
certified  with  the  town  seal  of  Savannah.3  This  meeting 
and  petition  are  the  true  germ  of  popular  government  in  the 
colony.  When  the  action  of  the  Georgia  officers  and  in 
habitants  became  known  in  England,  the  Trustees  at  last 
resolved  to  permit  the  introduction  of  slavery  under  certain 
restrictions.  And  upon  sending  their  proposed  regulations 
to  the  president  of  the  colony  they  say,  "  as  you  took  into 
Consultation  with  you  upon  this  Affair  several  of  the  prin 
cipal  People  of  the  Colony,  when  you  propos'd  the  Regula 
tions  which  occurr'd  to  you,  you  must  assemble  such  again 
that  they  may  see  the  Regulations  upon  which  the  Trustees 
think  proper  to  form  the  Act."  4  In  this  manner,  the  slave 
question  led  to  the  first  assembly  of  citizens  which  met  under 
the  authority  and  with  the  approval  of  the  Trustees. 

In  October,  1749,  a  convention  which  met  in  accordance 
with  this  instruction  was  composed  of  about  twenty-seven 
persons,5  chosen  from  the  different  districts.6  I  have  found 
no  record  of  the  method  of  choice  in  the  localities,  nor  of  the 
manner  of  assignment  of  representatives.  In  the  absence 
of  any  law  upon  the  subject,  the  elections,  if  held  at  all, 
must  have  been  managed  quite  informally.  The  assembly 

1  Coll.  Ga.  Hist.  Soc.,  II,  262-263. 

2  Jones,  I,  422. 

*Ibid.,  422-423;    Stevens,  I,  311. 

4  Jones,  I,  423;    M'Call,  I,  209;    Stevens,  I,  311. 

5  So  says  Stevens,  and  Jones,  of  course,  follows  him ;    M'Call  gives 
only  twenty-three  representatives. 

'  M'Call,  I,  209. 


The  Suffrage  in  Georgia.  169 

adopted  substantially  all  the  regulations  suggested  by  the 
Trustees,  and  then  the  members  signed  their  names  to  a 
paper  requesting  the  introduction  of  slavery  under  these 
restrictions.  The  twenty-seven  signers  are  said  to  be  of  the 
"  highest  respectability  in  the  province."  1 

This  extraordinary  assembly  was  followed  shortly  by  pro 
vision  for  an  annual  meeting  of  representatives,  who  were 
to  meet  not  for  purposes  of  legislation,  but  in  order  that  the 
Trustees  might  be  made  acquainted  with  the  state  of  the 
province,  "  the  better  to  enable  them  to  procure  all  the  ad 
vantages  they  can  for  the  good  of  the  people,  and  provide 
for  the  welfare  and  security  of  the  province."  2  The  assem 
bly  was  to  meet  for  not  longer  than  one  month  "  at  the  most 
leisure  time,"  in  each  year.  Every  village,  town,  or  dis 
trict  having  ten  families  settled  within  its  limits,  was  en 
titled  to  send  a  representative,  and  those  having  thirty 
families  could  "  depute  two  persons."  Savannah  should 
have  four  deputies;  Augusta  and  Ebenezer  each  two,  and 
Frederica,  if  thirty  families  were  inhabiting  there,  the  same 
number.3 

The  assembly  could  only  "  propose,  debate,  and  represent 
to  the  Trustees  what  shall  appear  to  them  to  be  for  the  bene 
fit,  not  only  of  each  particular  settlement,  but  for  the  prov 
ince  in  general ;"  4  since  legislative  power  was  by  the  charter 
vested  solely  in  the  Trustees.  The  representatives  were  to 
furnish  an  account  of  the  population,  land  cultivation,  negro 
servitude,  and  productions  of  the  districts  which  they 
severally  represented.  No  qualifications  for  the  suffrage 
were  set,  but  those  of  representatives  were  established  in  the 
strangest  manner. 

"  From  and  after  the  24th  day  of  June,  1751,  no  person  shall  be 
capable  of  being  chosen  a  deputy  who  has  not  one  hundred  mulberry 
trees  planted,  and  properly  fenced,  upon  every  fifty  acres  he  possesses; 
and  that  from  and  after  the  24th  day  of  June,  1753,  no  person  shall  be 
capable  of  being  chosen  a  deputy  who  has  not  strictly  conformed  to 

1  Stevens,  I,  312 ;   Jones,  I,  425 ;    M'Call,  I,  209  f f. 

2  Stevens,  I,  245. 

'Stevens,  I,  246;    Jones,  I,  434~435 ;    M'Call,  I,  231. 
4  Ibid. 


170     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

the  limitation  of  the  number  of  negro  slaves  in  proportion  to  his  white 
servants,  who  has  not  at  least  one  female  in  his  family  instructed  in 
the  art  of  reeling  silk,  and  who  does  not  yearly  produce  fifteen  pounds 
of  silk  upon  fifty  acres  of  land,  and  the  like  quantity  upon  every  fifty 
acres  he  possesses." 1 

"  Thus  tenaciously,"  says  Stevens,  "  did  the  Trustees 
cling  to  some  of  the  original  purposes  of  their  settlement; 
and  so  strangely  did  they  engraft  upon  the  legislature  of 
Georgia  the  unusual  qualifications,  not  of  freehold  and  in 
come,  but  of  mulberry  trees  and  raw  silk,  as  constituting 
eligibility  to  a  seat  in  the  assembly.  This  was  sealed,  and 
became  the  law  of  the  Trustees,  on  the  2/th  of  March, 
I75O."2  In  no  other  part  of  the  American  colonies  shall 
we  find  a  more  absurd  political  qualification  than  this  im 
posed  by  the  philanthropic  Trustees  of  Georgia. 

But  the  government  of  the  Trustees  was  fast  approaching 
its  close.  It  had  proved  a  "  philanthropic,  agricultural,  in 
dustrial,  commercial,  and  governmental"  failure.3  Even  be 
fore  the  Trust's  twenty-one  years  of  legal  duration  had  ex 
pired,  it  felt  the  necessity  of  surrendering  its  authority  to 
the  Crown,  and  on  June  23,  1752,  the  transfer  to  the  Crown 
was  completed,  the  last  meeting  of  the  Trustees  was  held, 
and  their  seal  broken.4  After  this  the  Board  of  Trade 
recommended  to  the  king  that  the  colony  be  organized  with 
a  governor,  an  assembly,  and  courts  of  judicature,  under 
regulations  well  adapted  to  the  circumstances  of  the  colony.5 
And  accordingly,  on  August  6,  1754,  the  King  in  Council 
appointed  John  Reynolds  as  governor  of  the  colony. 

In  the  new  governor's  commission  and  instructions,  the 
suffrage,  for  the  first  time  in  Georgia,  was  expressly  defined. 
The  electors  of  members  of  the  "  Commons  House  of  As 
sembly"  were  to  be  freeholders  who  possessed  at  least  fifty 
acres  of  land  in  the  parish  or  district  where  they  voted; 

1  Stevens,  I,  247. 

1  Ibid.     Compare  the  equally  extreme  measures  taken  by  Frederick 
the  Great  to  establish  silk  culture  in  Prussia. 
•Ibid.,  313- 

*  Stevens,  I,  252-258 ;   Jones,  I,  450-460. 
6  Ibid.t  381 ;   lbid.f  460. 


The  Suffrage  in  Georgia.  171 

while  members  of  the  assembly  were  required  to  possess  at 
least  five  hundred  acres  of  land  in  any  part  of  the  province.1 
The  assembly  was  given  legislative  power  similar  to  as 
semblies  in  other  royal  colonies.  Now  the  silk-worm  and 
mulberry  tree  prerequisites  gave  place  to  a  rational  qualifica 
tion  for  suffrage  or  office-holding,  and  the  old  information- 
giving  group  of  deputies  was  displaced  by  a  truly  represen 
tative  legislative  assembly. 

The  first  assembly  met  in  January,  1755,  and  was  com 
posed  of  nineteen  members,  who  were  apportioned  among 
three  districts,  into  which  the  governor,  for  convenience, 
divided  the  colony.2  Some  excitement  was  caused  in  the 
assembly  by  the  actions  of  one  Edmund  Gray,  who  had 
fraudulently  gained  a  representative's  land  qualification,  and 
who  even  tried  to  assemble  the  freeholders  in  Savannah  to 
intimidate  the  assembly.  He  and  his  friends  were  expelled 
from  the  legislature.3 

The  suffrage  qualification  came  up  for  consideration  in 
this  first  assembly,  for  it  was  found  that  the  terms  of  the 
governor's  instructions  limiting  the  suffrage  to  those  own 
ing  fifty  acres  of  land  would  disfranchise  many  of  the  in 
habitants  in  towns.  Owing  to  the  exposed  situation  of  the 
colony,  it  had  been  the  policy  of  the  Trustees  and  of  Ogle- 
thorpe  to  settle  the  people  in  towns,  where  they  could  be 
easily  protected;  and  in  carrying  out  this  policy  the  fifty 
acres  of  each  settler  were  often  divided  between  a  home  lot 
in  the  town,  a  few  acres  in  the  commons,  and  the  remainder 
in  farm  land  near  the  town.4  After  the  alienation  of  lands 
was  permitted,  it  is  probable  that  many  owners  of  town  lots 
did  not  possess  any  other  land.  To  remedy  the  inequalities 
which  the  uniform  suffrage  requirement  would  produce,  the 
assembly  was  forced  to  appeal  to  the  English  government, 
since  no  law  in  the  colony  could  change  the  governor's  in 
structions.  The  assembly  said,  in  a  memorial  to  the  king, 
that  according  to  the  instructions 

1  Jones,  I,  464. 

2  Stevens,  I,  389,  392 ;    Jones,  I,  474- 
8  Stevens,  I,  398-399- 

*  Ibid.,  107,  137.     Compare  Penn's  apportionment  of  lots  in  Philadel 
phia. 


172     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

"  residents  in  towns  having  buildings  and  improvements  greater  in 
value  than  five  hundred  acres,  were  not  permitted  to  sit  in  the  Assem 
bly;  and  freeholders  of  town  lots  liable  to  pay  taxes  for  the  support 
of  government,  were  not  permitted  to  vote  for  representatives,  though 
the  value  of  their  one  or  two  town  acres  greatly  exceeded  the  fifty 
acres  by  which  many  others  became  qualified  to  vote."  * 

In  England  the  Board  of  Trade  considered  this  memorial 
during  May  and  July,  I755,2  and  referred  the  matter  to  the 
lords  justices.  In  November  of  the  same  year  an  additional 
instruction  was  prepared  for  the  governor,  according  to 
which  he  was  authorized  to  assent  to  a  bill  for  ascertaining 
the  qualifications  of  electors  upon  the  condition  that  the  bill 
be  first  submitted  for  approval  to  his  Majesty,  or  that  it 
contain  a  clause  suspending  the  execution  of  the  act  until 
the  king's  pleasure  should  be  known.3  The  power  thus 
granted  does  not  appear  to  have  been  exercised, 
i  In  1761  an  act  was  passed  "  To  assertain  the  manner  and 
form  of  Electing  Members  to  represent  the  Inhabitants  of 
this  Province  in  the  Commons  House  of  Assembly."4  The 
preamble  states  that  the  manner  and  form  of  choosing  mem 
bers  had  never  yet  been  determined.  The  act  does  not 
change  the  property  qualifications  of  voters  as  they  had  been 
in  1754.  The  suffrage  clause  reads: 

"  every  free  white  man  and  no  other  who  has  attained  to  the  age  of 
Twenty  One  years  and  hath  been  Resident  in  the  Province  Six  Months 
and  is  legally  possessed  in  his  own  Right  of  fifty  Acres  of  Land  in 
the  said  Parish  District  or  village  for  which  the  Member  or  Members 
is  or  are  to  be  elected  to  represent  in  the  General  Assembly  shall  be 
deemed  a  person  qualified  for  Electing  a  Representative  or  Representa 
tives  to  serve  as  Member  or  Members  of  the  Commons  House  of 
Assembly  for  the  Parish  District  Town  or  village  wherein  he  is  pos 
sessed  of  the  above  Qualification."  /[ 

1  Stevens,  I,  412 ;    Jones,  I,  489. 

2  MS.  Board  of  Trade  Journals  (in  Pa.  Hist.  Soc.),  Vol.  63,  pp.  184, 
185-186,  276,  280. 

3  Ibid.,  320,  321,  324. 

4  Title  only  given  in  Watkins's  Digest,  67;    in  full  in  Bishop,  Elec 
tions  in  American  Colonies,  279^-287. 


The  Suffrage  in  Georgia.  173 

Thus  in  spite  of  the  earlier  protest  of  the  townspeople,  the 
old  requirement  was  continued,  and,  indeed,  retained  with 
out  change  until  the  Revolution. 

The  general  conduct  of  elections  was  carefully  defined  by 
the  act  of  1761.  The  returning  officer  was  to  prepare  a  book 
and  enter  therein  the  names  of  all  persons  presenting  them 
selves  as  candidates,  leaving  "  a  fair  column"  under  each 
candidate's  name.  It  was  the  duty  of  the  officer  to  repeat 
distinctly  the  name  of  the  candidate  for  which  each  elector 
voted,  and  then  to  enter  the  elector's  name  in  the  "  fair  col 
umn"  under  the  candidate's  name.  Voters  were  forbidden 
to  alter  their  votes  after  once  casting  them,  and  could  not 
vote  twice  at  "  one  and  the  same  Election."  Candidates 
were  to  be  free-born  subjects  of  Great  Britain  or  the  domin 
ions  belonging  thereto,  or  naturalized  persons,  professing 
the  Christian  religion;  they  must  be  twenty-one  years  of 
age ;  residents  of  the  province  twelve  months  before  the  date 
of  the  election  writ,  and  possessed  of  five  hundred  acres  of 
land  in  the  province.  Either  electors  or  candidates  could  be 
compelled  to  swear  that  they  were  properly  qualified.  The 
polls  wrere  to  be  open  from  nine  in  the  morning  until  six  in 
the  afternoon  on  not  more  than  two  days ;  and  fines  were  to 
be  imposed  for  intimidation  or  bribery  in  elections. 

This  act  is  the  only  general  election  act  passed  in  the 
colony  of  Georgia,  and  its  suffrage  provision  of  fifty  acres 
of  freehold,  taken  from  the  governor's  instructions,  is  the 
only  legal  qualification  for  electors  which  the  colony  pos 
sessed.  In  the  same  way  the  elections  for  representatives 
are  the  only  ones  of  which  any  record  has  been  found ;  pre 
sumably  all  other  officers  were  appointed  by  the  Crown  or 
the  governor.1 

1  It  is  very  much  regretted  that  none  of  the  original  materials  of 
Georgia  history  was  accessible  to  the  writer,  except  those  published 
in  the  Collections  of  the  Historical  Society.  It  is  believed  that  a  much 
more  detailed  account  of  the  suffrage  and  representation  than  that 
given  above  could  be  obtained  from  the  known  extant  material.  Un 
fortunately,  I  have  not  had  the  opportunity  to  inspect  these  manu 
scripts. 


CHAPTER   VII. 

THE  SUFFRAGE  IN  NEW  YORK. 

I.   Under  the  Dutch,  1613-1664. 

i.  The  Provincial  Suffrage. 

About  fifteen  years  of  colonial  life  in  New  Netherland 
passed  without  any  apparent  popular  participation  in  the 
government.  Under  the  control  of  the  New  Netherland 
Company,  the  Dutch  colony  was  merely  a  trading  settle 
ment,  and  during  the  early  years  of  the  West  India  Com 
pany  no  provision  was  made  for  giving  the  colonists  a  share 
in  the  government.  It  was  not  until  the  patroon  concessions 
of  1629  were  issued  that  we  find  evidence  of  a  change  of 
policy.  By  these  concessions 1  broad  feudal  political  and 
economic  rights  were  given  to  persons  bringing  out  a  certain 
number  of  settlers.  But  in  addition  to  the  mediaeval  terms 
respecting  patroons,  the  concessions  also  offered  inducements 
to  individual  settlers,  and  among  other  privileges  gave  the 
colonies  lying  on  each  river  or  island  the  right  to  appoint 
deputies  every  two  years  to  give  information  annually  to 
the  Commander  and  his  Council.2 

These  provisions  might  have  furnished  the  basis  for  a 
regular  representative  system  had  they  been  adhered  to  by 
the  directors  in  New  Amsterdam;  but,  in  fact,  it  was  thir 
teen  years  after  the  granting  of  the  concessions  before  a 
partially  representative  body  was  called,  and  over  twenty 
years  until,  in  1658,  a  truly  representative  assembly  was 
summoned. 

Three  quasi-representative  boards  were  erected  by  the 
directors,—"  The  Twelve  Men"  of  1642,  "  The  Eight  Men" 
of  1643-44,  and  "The  Nine  Men"  of  1647-1650.  The 
Twelve  Men  were  selected  to  advise  Director  Kieft  concern- 

1  O'Callaghan,  History  of  New  Netherland,  I,    112-120. 
8  Articles  XXI  and  XXVIII. 
174- 


The  Suffrage  in  New  York.  175 

ing  the  impending  war  with  the  Indians,  and,  naturally,  in 
this  first  and  hasty  election,  we  see  no  formal  ideas  of  the 
suffrage.  The  twelve  committeemen  were  chosen  by  a  meet 
ing  "  of  all  the  masters  and  heads  of  families"  of  New  Am 
sterdam  and  vicinity,  which  had  been  called  by  the  director.1 
The  board  tried  to  induce  the  director  to  recognize  them  as 
a  permanent  part  of  the  government,  but  he  refused  their 
demands,  saying  they  had  been  chosen  only  to  consult  con 
cerning  the  Indian  affairs ;  but  the  director  did  promise  that 
he  would  consult  with  persons  among  the  commonalty  re 
garding  taxation  and  other  public  matters.2  In  this  way  the 
governor  offered  to  recognize  informally  the  wishes  of  the 
community,  although  he  refused  to  provide  a  permanent 
representative  system. 

The  recurrence  of  Indian  troubles  3  again  forced  Kieft  to 
call  a  general  meeting  of  the  settlers,  in  which,  according  to 
a  document  signed  by  those  present,  only  forty-eight  persons 
took  part.4  The  commonalty,  strangely,  refused  to  seject  a 
committee  to  represent  them,  but  asked  the  director  to  nomi 
nate  persons  from  their  number,  who  might  be  accepted  or 
rejected  by  the  meeting;  and  the  director  and  council  nomi 
nating  eight  men,  the  choice  was  accepted  in  a  paper  signed 
by  twenty-eight  persons.5 

This  meeting  and  the  papers  signed  by  those  present  show 
how  slim  was  the  attendance  at  such  gatherings,  and  how 
narrow  the  occasional  suffrage  granted  to  the  "  masters  and 
heads  of  families."  O'Callaghan  estimates  the  population  in 
and  around  New  Amsterdam  at  this  time  as  about  twenty- 
five  hundred  souls,  five  hundred  of  whom  were  men.6  If 
these  figures  be  correct,  the  meeting  can  scarcely  be  called  a 
democratic  one;  and  we  have  no  proof  that  it  was  a  repre 
sentative  body,  although  persons  might  have  been  present 
from  the  neighboring  settlements.  Apparently  this  meeting, 
like  a  later  one,  was  composed  only  of  "  some  of  the  most  in- 

1  O'Callaghan,  New  Netherland,  I,  241 ;  Brodhead,  New  York,  I,  317. 

*N.  Y.  Col  Doc.,  I,  202-203. 

3  Ibid.,  181-185. 

•Ibid.,  191. 

5  Ibid.,  192;  O'Callaghan,  I,  283. 

'  O'Callaghan,  I,  385-386. 


176     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

fluential  burghers  and  inhabitants"  of  New  Amsterdam  and 
its  vicinity.1  It  is  thus  rather  difficult  to  interpret  the  real 
meaning  of  the  word  "  commonalty,"  and  the  meagreness 
of  the  records  leaves  us  in  doubt  whether  participation  in 
the  meeting  was  limited  by  definite  action  of  the  director  or 
by  the  reluctance  of  the  people  to  attend.  A  system  of  proxy 
voting  would  have  solved  the  difficulty  of  inadequate  means 
of  transportation,  but  there  is  no  evidence  pointing  to  the 
existence  of  such  a  plan.  The  method  which  arose  nat 
urally  in  Massachusetts  and  Maryland,  and  developed  later 
on  Long  Island  under  the  English,  appears  totally  lacking  in 
New  Netherland.2 

The  Eight  Men  appointed  by  the  director  with  the  consent 
of  the  commonalty  placed  a  broad  construction  upon  their 
powers.  They  expelled  one  of  their  number  and  elected 
another  in  his  place;  they  passed  local  ordinances,  adopted 
measures  for  the  prosecution  of  the  Indian  war,  and  de 
manded  that  taxes  be  laid  only  with  their  consent.3  They 
wrote  to  the  West  India  Company  and  the  States  General  of 
the  Netherlands  and  threatened  to  betake  themselves  to  the 
English  if  their  condition  wras  not  improved.4  The  follow 
ing  year,  1644,  the  Eight  Men,  angered  at  Kieft's  action  in 
imposing  unpopular  taxes,  sent  a  long  protest  to  Holland, 
in  which  they  spare  no  words  to  describe  the  director's  lack 
of  judgment  in  dealing  with  the  Indians  and  his  arbitrary 
rule  over  the  Dutch.5  They  say, — 

*N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  XIV,  220.  Without  doubt  the  difficulty  of  reach 
ing  New  Amsterdam  from  the  neighboring  Long  Island  and  mainland 
settlements  would  prevent  a  full  gathering  of  even  the  heads  of  fami 
lies.  Compare  the  reluctance  to  accept  freemenship  and  perform  politi 
cal  duties  in  Massachusetts  and  Maryland,  Mass.  Col.  Rec.,  II,  38; 
Md.  Archives,  Proceedings  and  Acts  of  Assembly,  1637-64,  pp.  167, 
170. 

2  Proxy  voting  existed  in  the  English  town  of  Gravesend  under  the 
Dutch  rule  (N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  XIV,  329),  and  may  have  been  customary 
in  other  English  towns,  but  it  was  not  applied  to  the  whole  province 
(Hempstead  Town  Records,  I,  409). 

3  O'Callaghan,  I,  285^88. 

4  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  I,  139-140,  190. 

5  Ibid.,  188,  209-213. 


The  Suffrage  in  New  York.  177 

"  It  is  impossible  ever  to  settle  this  country  until  a  different  system 
be  introduced  here,  and  a  new  governor  sent  out  with  more  people, 
who  will  settle  in  suitable  places,  one  near  the  other,  in  the  form  of 
villages  or  hamlets,  and  elect  from  among  themselves  a  Bailiff  or 
Schout  and  Schepens,  who  will  be  empowered  to  send  their  deputies 
and  give  their  votes  on  public  affairs  with  the  Director  and  Council, 
so  that  the  entire  country  may  not  be  hereafter,  at  the  whim  of  one 
man,  again  reduced  to  similar  danger." 

With  the  composition  and  forwarding  of  their  petition  the 
work  of  the  Eight  Men  ceased,  and  we  hear  no  more  of  their 
organization.  Kieft,  however,  called  another  meeting  of  the 
commonalty  in  August,  1645,  to  which  he  submitted  the 
terms  of  a  proposed  treaty  with  the  Indians,  and  assured 
them  "  that  if  any  one  could  give  good  advice,  he  might 
declare  his  opinions  freely."  Only  one  person,  a  tailor, 
objected  to  the  treaty.1 

The  petition  of  the  Eight  Men  called  forth  proposals  in 
Holland  for  greater  political  freedom  in  the  colony.  The 
Chamber  of  Accounts  of  the  West  India  Company  advised  a 
formal  representative  assembly  holding  semi-annual  meet 
ings,  and  having  power  to  advise  concerning  almost  all  public 
matters.2  But  the  Chamber  of  Accounts  was  more  liberal 
than  the  Board  of  XIX  Directors,  which  was  the  real  power 
in  the  West  India  Company.  They  did,  indeed,  compose 
new  instructions  to  the  director  and  council,  but  these  gave 
no  power  to  the  deputies  called  by  the  director,  except  to 
inform  him  of  the  "  State  and  condition  of  their  Colonies."  3 

'Brodhead,  I,  408. 

1  '*  As  the  respective  Colonies  are  allowed  by  the  28th  article  of 
the  Freedoms  to  delegate  one  or  two  persons  to  report  their  state 
and  condition  to  the  Director  and  Council,  at  least  once  a  year,  so 
are  we  of  opinion  that  the  said  delegates  should,  moreover,  assemble 
every  six  months,  at  the  summons  of  the  Director  and  Council,  for 
mutual  good  understanding,  and  the  general  advancement  of  the  public 
welfare,  to  aid  in  advising  them,  besides,  upon  all  affairs  relating  to 
the  prosperity  of  their  Colonies,  the  conciliation  of  the  Indians  and 
neighbors,  the  maintenance  of  the  Freedoms  and  privileges,  the  removal 
of  abuses,  and  the  support  of  the  laws  and  statutes." — N.  Y.  Col.  Doc., 

I,  154- 
8  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  I,  154. 

12 


178     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

The  petition  may  also  have  played  a  part  in  deciding  the 
company  to  recall  Kieft  and  send  out  a  new  governor. 

Stuyvesant  had  been  in  the  colony  but  a  short  time  when 
he,  too,  was  compelled  to  call  in  the  people  to  assist  him  in 
the  wars  with  the  Indians.  He  called  together  the  people 
of  Manhattan,  Breuckelen,  Amesfoort,  and  Pavonia,  and 
directed  them  to  choose  eighteen  persons  from  whom  he  and 
the  council  might  select  nine,  "  as  is  customary  in  the  Father 
land."  J  After  the  election  by  the  commonalty,  Stuyvesant 
issued  an  ordinance  in  the  nature  of  a  charter  of  govern 
ment.2  In  its  preamble  he  says  that  he  desired 

"  nothing  more  than  that  the  government  of  New  Netherland,  en 
trusted  to  our  care,  and  principally  New  Amsterdam,  our  capital  and 
residence,  might  continue  and  increase  in  good  order,  justice,  police, 
population,  prosperity,  and  mutual  harmony,  and  be  provided  with 
strong  fortifications,  a  church,  a  school,  trading  place,  harbor,  and  sim 
ilar  highly  necessary  public  edifices,  and  improvements,  to  which  end  we 
are  desirous  of  obtaining  the  assistance  of  our  whole  Commonalty,  as 
nothing  is  better  adapted  to  promote  their  own  welfare  and  comfort, 
and  as  such  is  required  in  every  well-regulated  government." 

But  as  "  it  is  difficult  to  cover  so  many  heads  with  a  single 
cap,  or  to  reduce  so  many  opinions  to  one,"  he  had  directed 
a  certain  number  to  be  chosen  from  the  community.  From 
this  double  nomination  he  now  selected  nine  to  act  as  the 
"  Interlocuters  in  behalf  of  the  Commonalty."  The  ordi 
nance  explained  the  duties  of  the  Nine  Men  and  the  method 
of  holding  meetings.  It  provided  for  an  annual  change  in 
the  board  upon  the  partial  retirement  principle  of  the  Father 
land  ;  six  of  the  members  were  to  lose  their  seats  annually, 
and  the  old  board,  "  without  its  being  necessary  to  convene 
the  entire  Commonalty  hereafter,"  should  present  twelve 
new  names  and  the  old  nine  members  to  the  director  for  his 
choice  of  six  new  members. 

'  Thus  jealously,"  says  Brodhead,  "  did  Stuyvesant  hedge 
the  meagre  privileges  he  was  forced  to  concede  to  the  people. 
In  the  first  election  alone  was  the  voice  of  the  '  wavering 

"Brodhead,  I,  473;    O'Callaghan,  II,  36  (August,  1647). 
2  September  25,   1647 ;    Laws  and  Ordinances   of  New  Netherland, 
75-78. 


The  Suffrage  in  New  York.  179 

multitude'  to  be  expressed ;  the  Nine  Men  were  to  nominate 
their  successors."  l 

We  cannot  here  enter  into  the  work  of  the  Nine  Men,  nor 
look  at  the  contest  which  they  made  for  the  rights  of  their 
board  as  granted  by  Stuyvesant  in  his  ordinance."  When, 
however,  they  desired  a  delegation  to  Fatherland,  Stuy 
vesant  proposed  a  new  representative  assembly,  perhaps 
hoping  that  the  English  towns  on  Long  Island  which 
enjoyed  broad  privileges  might  support  his  policy  against 
the  Nine  Men.3  This  conference,  composed  of  deputies 
from  the  "  militia  companies  and  the  citizens,"  was  scarcely 
a  representative  body,  for  it  contained  only  seven  militia 
officers  and  three  citizens  in  addition  to  the  company's  offi 
cers.4  The  conference  reached  no  definite  conclusion,  and 
the  two  sides  seem  anxious  to  increase  their  strength  by 
inviting  more  deputies ;  the  party  of  the  Nine  Men  suggested 
the  calling  of  two  deputies  from  each  village  or  colony  in 
the  province,  while  Stuyvesant  proposed  summoning  merely 
deputies  from  the  neighboring  settlements.5  No  records  of 
the  projected  assembly  have  been  found. 

In  the  following  summer  the  Nine  Men  sent  their  famous 
remonstrance  to  Europe.6  This  document  is  invaluable  to 
the  student  of  colonial  New  York  history,  for  it  gives  a  re 
markably  full  account  of  the  country,  its  resources,  trade, 
and  political  conditions. 

The  reasons  for  the  declining  prosperity  of  the  province 
are  stated  to  be  wholly  political : 

"  As  we  shall  treat  of  the  reasons  and  causes  by  which  New  Nether- 
land  has  been  reduced  to  its  present  low  and  ruinous  condition,  so  we 
consider  it  necessary  first  to  enumerate  them  separately;  and,  in  ac 
cordance  with  our  daily  experience  as  far  as  our  knowledge  extends, 

1  History  of  New  York,  I,  475. 
*N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  I,  315. 
•Ibid. 

4  March  4,  1649;  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  XIV.  109-111 ;   O'Callaghan,  II,  90. 

5  AT.  7.  Col.  Doc.,  XIV,  112. 

8  Ibid.,  I,  259-318,  the  three  delegates  bearing  letters  from  the  Nine 
Men,  a  petition  on  behalf  of  the  commonalty  and  a  voluminous  re 
monstrance,  left  New  Amsterdam  on  August  15,  1649. 


180     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

we  here  assert  in  one  word,  and  none  better  offers,  that  the  cause  is 
bad  government  with  its  attendants  and  consequences.  With  our  best 
light  we  cannot  perceive  any  other  than  this  to  be  the  sole  and  true 
foundation-stone  of  the  decay  and  ruin  in  New  Netherland.  This 
government  from  which  so  much  abuse  proceeds  is  two-fold;  to  wit, 
in  Fatherland  by  the  Company,  and  in  this  country."  * 

The  contest  between  the  Nine  Men  and  the  director  was  for 
the  time  transferred  to  the  halls  of  the  States  General,  and 
that  body  considered  a  provisional  order  which  would  have 
established  village  governments,  given  a  city  government  to 
New  Amsterdam,  made  two  members  of  the  director's  coun 
cil  elective,  and  provided  for  the  continuance  of  the  Nine 
Men  for  three  years.2 

But  these  proposals  were  met  by  the  West  India  Company 
with  a  seemingly  liberal  set  of  concessions,3  which  actually 
made  no  mention  of  political  privileges  while  they  increased 
the  economic  inducements  to  settlers.4  In  the  colony,  too, 

1 N.  Y.  Col  Doc.,  I,  295. 

2  Ibid.,  387-391. 

"  The  Council  of  New  Netherland  shall  consist  of  a  President 
or  Director;  a  Vice  Director  and  of  three  Councillors,  one  of 
whom  shall  be  appointed  on  the  part  of  their  High  Mightinesses 
and  the  West  India  Company,  and  the  other  two  selected  from 
the  inhabitants  of  that  country. 

"  For  which  purpose  the  Director  and  Council  shall  be  bound 
to  call  a  meeting  of  the  Patroons  of  Colonies,  or  their  agents, 
and  of  the  deputies  of  the  Commonalty,  to  be  held  within  the 
city  of  New  Amsterdam  for  the  purpose  of  nominating  four 
qualified  persons  from  whom  two  shall  be  selected  who  shall  be 
thereunto  qualified  by  their  High  Mightinesses  and  those  of  the 
West  India  Company.  These  two  elected  Councillors  shall 
serve  four  consecutive  years,  but  on  the  expiration  of  the  afore 
said  four  years,  one  of  the  two  may  by  lot  continue  two  years 
more  and  the  other  retire  in  order  to  present  two  others  in 
future,  biennially,  by  a  new  nomination,  in  manner  as  afore 
said." 

3  Dated  May  24,  1650 ;   N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  I,  401-405. 

4  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  West  India  Company  did  offer 
favorable  terms  to  settlers.     In  1650  it  was  said  that  the  company  had 
frequently  transported  the  farmer  and  his  family  to  New  Netherland 


The  Suffrage  in  New  York.  181 

Stuyvesant  refused  to  commission  new  members  of  the  board 
of  Nine  Men  when  a  nomination  was  made  to  him  in 
December,  1650^  thus  ignoring  the  order  of  the  States 
General  of  April  12,  1650,  which  directed  the  continuance  of 
the  Nine  Men  until  further  orders  from  the  States  General.2 
The  authority  of  the  last  of  the  three  boards  thus  came  to 
an  end.  The  three  bodies,  the  Twelve  Men,  the  Eight  Men, 
and  the  Nine  Men,  show  a  similarity  in  origin  and  in  the 
reasons  for  their  failure.  Each  was  selected  from  the  com 
munity  of  New  Netherland,  either  by  direct  voice  of  the 
people  or  by  the  people  ratifying  the  earlier  choice  of  the 
director.  The  principle  which  underlay  their  origin  was  not 
a  representation  of  localities,  but  of  the  whole  community. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  work  of  all  three  ceased  when  they 
came  into  conflict  with  the  arbitrary  power  of  the  directors ; 
no  interference  could  be  brooked  with  the  authority  of  the 
petty  sovereigns  of  New  Netherland  or  the  privileges  of  the 
honorable  company  which  they  represented.  In  the  words 
of  Director  Kieft  regarding  the  Twelve  Men,  which  un 
doubtedly  expressed  his  own  and  Stuyvesant's  later  opinion 
of  the  other  boards  as  soon  as  their  immediate  advantage 
to  the  director  ceased,  the  boards  tended  "  to  a  dangerous 
consequence  and  to  the  great  injury  both  of  the  country  and 
of  our  authority."  3 


and  given  him  there  a  farm  and  bouwerie,  four  horses,  four  cows,  and 
sheep  and  pigs  in  proportion ;  the  farmer  to  have  the  use  of  the  cattle 
and  their  increase  for  six  years ;  returning  to  the  company  the  number 
he  had  received.  The  farmer  bound  himself  to  pay  the  company  one 
hundred  guilders  and  eighty  pounds  of  butter  yearly.  (N.  Y.  Col.  Doc., 

I,  371.) 

1  In  December,  1648,  Stuyvesant  renewed  the  board,  putting  in  two 
new  members;  and  apparently  a  similar  renewal  must  have  taken 
place  in  1649,  although  I  have  found  no  record  of  the  fact.  In  1650 
twelve  nominations  were  made  to  Stuyvesant,  but  he  refused  to  select 
new  members,  claiming  the  old  board  had  exceeded  its  powers  (N.  Y. 
Col.  Doc.,  I,  439,  450,  452,  455;  O'Callaghan,  II,  89;  Brodhead.  I, 

495). 

*N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  I,  399. 

8  Ibid.,  203.  Stuyvesant  for  a  short  time  had  the  sympathy  and  sup 
port  of  the  English  on  Long  Island.  In  1651,  Gravesend  and  Hempstead 


1 82     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

After  the  overthrow  of  the  Nine  Men,  no  such  permanent 
boards  were  again  established,  but  occasional  meetings,  par 
taking  of  the  nature  of  pure  representative  bodies,  were  held, 
composed  of  deputies  from  the  several  towns  and  settlements. 
The  first  record  found  of  such  a  meeting  is  that  of  one  called 
by  the  director  and  council  to  meet  on  September  n,  1653. 
The  burgomasters  and  schepens  of  New  Amsterdam,  on 
September  9,  elected  two  persons  to  act  as  delegates  to  a 
"  general  assembly  of  the  country,"  *  but  no  other  record  of 
the  meeting  is  known  to  the  writer. 

Later  on  in  the  same  year  two  assemblies  were  held.  The 
first  one  met  in  pursuance  of  a  call  of  Stuyvesant  to  the 
"  nearest  subordinate  colonies"  to  send  deputies  to  meet  two 
members  of  the  council  and  discuss  means  for  stopping 
the  depredations  of  certain  English  thieves  on  Long  Island.2 


wrote  to  Holland  expressing  their  satisfaction  with  the  government  of 
the  directors.  These  letters  have  a  peculiar  interest  in  view  of  the 
independent  attitude  shortly  afterward  taken  by  the  Long  Island  towns. 

".  .  .  We  clearly  acknowledge  that  the  frequent  changeing 
a  government  or  the  power  of  electing  a  Governor  among  our 
selves,  which  some  among  us,  as  we  understand,  aim  at,  would 
be  our  ruin  and  destruction  by  reason  of  our  factious  and  vari 
ous  opinions,  inasmuch  as  many  among  us  be  unwilling  to  sub 
ject  themselves  to  any  sort  of  government,  mild  or  strong,  it 
must,  on  that  account,  be  compulsory  or  by  force  until  the 
Governor's  authority  be  well  confirmed ;  for  such  persons  will 
not  only  despise,  scorn,  or  disobey  authority,  and  by  their  evil 
example  drag  other  persons  along,  whereby  the  laws  would  be 
powerless,  but  every  one  would  desire  to  do  what  would  please 
and  gratify  himself.  In  fine  the  strongest  would  swallow  up 
the  weakest,  and  by  means  of  elections  or  choosing,  we  would 
be  involved  in  like  inconveniences.  Moreover,  we  are  not  sup 
plied  and  provided  with  persons  qualified  and  fit  for  such  sta 
tions.  Therefore,  and  seeing  that  we  have  nothing  to  bring 
forward  against  our  present  Governor,  but  on  the  contrary, 
truly,  and  in  deed  approving  his  public  deportment  in  his  ad 
ministration,  we  request  that  he  be  still  continued  over  us,  and 
that  no  change  be  made." 

1  Records  of  New  Amsterdam,  I,  117. 

*N.  Y.  Col  Doc.,  XIV,  219. 


The  Suffrage  in  New  York.  183 

In  addition  to  the  councillors  and  New  Amsterdam  deputies, 
only  three  towns,  all  English,1  were  represented.  The  atti 
tude  of  the  English  was  now  far  different  from  their  humil 
ity  of  1651 ;  they  demanded  protection  from  the  West  India 
Company,  and  threatened  if  it  were  not  granted  to  stop 
paying  taxes ;  and  they  urged  the  New  Amsterdam  authori 
ties  to  join  them  in  an  alliance  for  mutual  protection.2  The 
latter,  however,  suggested  a  full  representation  of  all  the 
neighboring  towns  and  the  sending  of  a  remonstrance  to 
officers  of  the  company  in  Holland.  The  plan  was  adopted 
and  tacitly  accepted  by  Stuyvesant,3  although  the  city  magis 
trates  and  not  the  director  invited  the  towns  to  send  their 
deputies  to  the  second  meeting.4 

Deputies  came  to  the  meeting  of  December  10,  1653,  from 
four  English  towns,  three  Dutch  towns,  and  from  New 
Amsterdam,  but  the  English  delegates  controlled  the  meet 
ing.6  The  principal  work  of  the  assembly  was  the  drafting 
and  presentation  to  the  director  of  a  remonstrance  which 
was  "  written  in  English,  by  the  Deputies  from  the  English 
villages."  6  The  petition  7  recognized  the  divine  and  natural 
origin  of  "  paternal  government,"  but,  while  acknowledging 
the  authority  of  the  States  General  and  the  West  India 
Company,  the  petitioners  claimed  the  privileges  in  New 
Netherland  which  subjects  of  the  Fatherland  enjoyed.  They 
were  apprehensive  of  the  establishment  of  an  arbitrary  gov 
ernment  among  them : 

"  'Tis  contrary  to  the  first  intentions  and  genuine  principles  of  every 
well  regulated  government,  that  one  or  more  men  should  arrogate  to 
themselves  the  exclusive  power  to  dispose,  at  will,  of  the  life  and  prop 
erty  of  any  individual,  and  this,  by  virtue  or  under  pretense  of  a  law 
or  order  he,  or  they,  might  enact,  without  the  consent,  knowledge  or 
election  of  the  whole  Body,  or  its  agents  or  representatives.  Hence 

1  Gravesend,  Vlissingen   (Flushing),  Newtown. 
8  N.  Y.  Col  Doc.,  XIV,  223-224;    O'Callaghan,  II,  238. 
8  AT.  Y.  Col  Doc.,  XIV,  231,  239. 

4  Rec.  of  New  Amsterdam,  I,  140 ;   N.  Y.  Col  Doc.,  XIV,  227-229. 
•AT.  Y.  Col  Doc.,  I,  553;   XIV,  233-236. 

8  Ibid.,  I,  553.     George  Baxter  of  Gravesend  was  the  author  of  the 
remonstrance ;   it  was  translated  into  Dutch  before  given  to  Stuyvesant. 
T  Ibid.,  550-552. 


184     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

the  enactment,  except  as  aforesaid,  of  new  Laws  or  orders  affecting 
the  Commonalty,  or  the  Inhabitants,  their  lives  or  property,  is  contrary 
and  opposed  to  the  granted  Freedoms  of  the  Dutch  Government,  and 
odious  to  every  freeborn  man,  and  principally  so  to  those  whom  God 
has  placed  in  a  free  state  on  newly  settled  lands,  which  might  require 
new  laws  and  orders,  not  transcending,  but  resembling  as  near  as 
possible,  those  of  Netherland.  We  humbly  submit  that  'tis  one  of  our 
privileges  that  our  consent  or  that  of  our  representatives  is  necessarily 
required  in  the  enactment  of  such  laws  and  orders." 

These  general  statements  were  followed  by  a  list  of  specific 
grievances.1 

Stuyvesant's  first  reply  to  the  petition  was  an  evasive  one,2 
but  on  December  12  he  declared  the  assembly  an  illegal 
gathering.3  The  following  day  the  meeting,  now  calling 
itself  a  "  convention,"  replied  that  the  director  had  given  his 
consent  to  their  gathering;  and  besides,  the 

"  Convention  had  no  other  aim,  than  the  service  and  protection  of  the 
country,  the  maintenance  and  preservation  of  the  freedoms,  privileges 
and  property  of  its  inhabitants,  but  not  an  unlawful  usurpation  of  the 
authority  of  the  said  Honble  Director-General  and  Council;  on  the 
contrary,  their  intention  was  to  prevent  illegal  proceedings,  while  the 
laws  of  Nature  give  to  all  men  the  right  to  gather  for  the  welfare  and 
protection  of  their  freedom  and  property"' 

Stuyvesant  gave  a  characteristic  rejoinder  to  the  last  expres 
sions  of  the  convention.  The  "  pretended  Convention"  was 
"  actually  declared  to  be  illegal,"  and  its  members  were  called 

1  Among  which  were  the  absence  of  any  protection  by  the  Company, 
the  enforcement  of  council  orders  which  had  never  been  published,  the 
refusal  to  grant  deeds  and  patents  which  had  been  promised,  and  the 
evidence  of  favoritism  in  the  granting  of  lands. 

5  He  demanded  a  better  translation  of  the  petition  and  copies  for  each 
member  of  the  council ;  the  assembly  refused  both  demands. 

3  He  claimed  they  had  exceeded  their  authority,  and  that  the  Dutch 
towns  had  no  right  to  send  representatives  (N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  XIV,  232). 
Since  he  had  expressed  his  intention  of  giving  them  that  right  before 
the  meeting  (Ibid.,  223-4),  his  subsequent  attitude  must  have  come 
from  chagrin  that  the  Dutch  deputies  did  not  give  him  their  support 
against  the  English. 

'Ibid.,  237. 


The  Suffrage  in  New  York.  185 

upon  to  disperse,  and  hold  no  more  meetings,  under  pain  "  of 
our  extreme  displeasure  and  arbitrary  correction."  l  The 
order  was  obeyed  by  the  deputies,  but  their  unredressed 
wrongs  smothered  for  a  time  until  they  broke  out  into  the 
flames  of  actual  rebellion  to  Stuyvesant's  rule.  Naturally, 
the  director  had  the  last  words  in  the  controversy.  In  two 
papers  2  respecting  the  convention,  he  answered  the  com 
plaints  of  the  deputies.  Replying  to  their  demand  for  all 
the  rights  of  subjects  in  Fatherland,  he  infers,  in  that  case, 
they  would  have  the  right  to  send  deputies  to  the  States 
General,  a  line  of  reasoning  which  seems  to  him  a  reductio 
ad  absurdam.  Concerning  their  demand  for  more  privi 
leges,  he  said, — 

"  It  ought  to  be  remembered,  that  the  Englishmen,  who  are  the  au 
thors  of  and  leaders  in  these  innovations,  enjoy  more  privileges,  than 
the  Exemptions  of  New  Netherland  grant  to  any  Hollander." 

And  he  hinted  that  their  affinity  for  their  own  nation  had 
led  them  to  threaten  to  tax  themselves  and  secure  their  own 
protection.  Replying  to  the  argument  from  the  law  of 
Nature,  proof  and  explanation  were  demanded : 

"  The  Director-General  and  Council  think,  that  the  authorities  are 
appointed  for  these  purposes,  but  not  all  men  generally,  for  that  would 
create  confusion.  The  Lords-Directors  resolved  for  this  reason  with 
the  knowledge  and  consent  of  their  High:  Might:  to  appoint  the  Di 
rector-General  and  Council,  giving  them  ample  authority  for  the  preser 
vation  and  protection  of  the  privileges,  freedom  and  property  of  the 
Company  and  the  good  inhabitants  and  if  necessary  for  the  convoca 
tion  of  an  Assembly  of  their  subjects,  but  this  authority  was  not  con 
ferred  on  the  Burgomasters  and  Schepens,  much  less  to  all  men." 

After  the  dismissal  of  the  assembly  of  1653,  Stuyvesant 
avoided  giving  the  Englishmen  an  opportunity  of  again  ex 
pressing  their  ideas.  In  February,  1654,  when  the  opinion 

1 N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  XIV,  238. 

a  One  of  these  is  his  "  Deductions"  upon  their  petition,  sent  to  the 
Directors  of  the  Company  (N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  XIV,  233-236)  ;  and  the 
other  is  a  statement  entered  upon  the  Council  Minutes  of  New  Nether- 
land  (ibid.,  239-240). 


1 86     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

of  the  localities  was  desired,  Stuyvesant  consulted  with  the 
New  Amsterdam  authorities  and  with  "  the  friends"  in  the 
several  villages.1  In  May  of  the  same  year,  when  an  English 
fleet  was  feared,  he  called  in  the  magistrates  of  the  Dutch 
villages  of  Breuckelen,  Midwout,  and  Amesfoort.2 

When  peace  had  been  made  with  England,  the  Dutch 
tried  to  conciliate  the  English  inhabitants,  and  even  went 
so  far  as  to  offer  remarkable  concessions  to  new  English 
settlers,  who,  it  was  hoped,  would  settle  between  the  Dela 
ware  and  Hudson  rivers,  and  thus  complete  a  line  of  settle 
ments  between  the  distant  parts  of  the  province.3  The  new 
agreement  permitted  the  English  settlers  in  case  of  disagree 
ment  between  themselves  and  Stuyvesant  or  his  successors 
to  elect  a  chief  or  director  for  themselves,  only  requiring 
all  writs  to  be  issued  in  the  name  of  the  Netherlands.4  But 
the  English  took  a  yard  where  the  Dutch  would  have  given 
them  an  ell.  English  settlers  from  Connecticut  were  coming 
down  the  Bronx,  and  in  1662  Connecticut  claimed  the  entire 
Bronx  and  Westchester  settlements,  together  with  all  the 
towns  on  Long  Island,  including  those  hitherto  under  the 
Dutch,  and  directed  all  of  them  to  send  deputies  to  the  next 
general  court.5  A  compromise  was  reached  later,  by  which 
Stuyvesant  yielded  Westchester  and  eastern  Long  Island  to 
Connecticut,  while  the  English  towns  in  western  Long 

1  Rec.  of  New  Amsterdam,  I,  159. 

2  Ibid.,  201.     The  English  on  Long  Island  were  found  to  be  in  cor 
respondence  with  the  authorities  in  Boston,  and  two  of  them  were  im 
prisoned  by  Stuyvesant.     In  March,   1655-6,  the  republic  of  England 
was  publicly  proclaimed  in  Gravesend  (N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  II,  152 ;   XIV, 
246,  278,  etc.;    Brodhead,  I,  ch.  XVII;    Flint,  Early  Long  Island,  277- 
278). 

3  O'Callaghan,  II,  443. 

4  Dated  February  14,  1661. 

"  The  said  inhabitants  shall  have  full  liberty,  after  they  have 
planted  their  colonie,  in  case  of  difference  with  the  aforesaid 
Peter  Stuyvesant,  or  any  that  shall  survive  him  as  Governor, 
by  appointment  of  the  States  of  Netherlands,  to  chuse  a  Di 
rector  or  Cheife;  only  they  shall  issue  out  all  writs  of  what 
nature  soever,  in  the  name  of  the  States  Generall  of  the  United 
Netherlands." 
6  Conn.  Col.  Rec.,  1636-65,  420-423 ;  Brodhead,  I,  703. 


The  Suffrage  in  New  York.  187 

Island,  hitherto  under  Dutch  control,  were  to  be  independent 
of  both  Connecticut  and  New  Amsterdam.1  The  inhabi 
tants  of  these  towns,  perhaps  familiar  with  the  earlier  prom 
ise  made  to  intending  Englishmen,  now  elected  one  John 
Scott  as  "  president"  and  set  up  an  independent  govern 
ment,  until  the  decision  of  the  king  should  be  known.2 

In  the  mean  time,  Stuyvesant,  upon  the  suggestion  of  the 
New  Amsterdam  authorities,3  had  called  together  another 
assembly.  This  body,  meeting  on  November  i,  1663,  was 
more  nearly  representative  of  the  Dutch  population  than  any 
of  the  earlier  assemblies  or  boards.  Two  delegates  from 
each  of  eight  Dutch  towns,  including  New  Amsterdam, 
were  sent,  and  in  one  instance  at  least  the  election  was  with 
the  consent  of  tlie  people.4  This  assembly  took  no  positive 
measures  to  support  the  Dutch  authorities,  but  spent  its  time 
in  complaining  of  the  Company's  neglect  of  the  colony.  Its 
only  practical  outcome  seems  to  have  been  the  appointment 
of  a  delegate  to  visit  Fatherland  and  explain  to  the  authori 
ties  the  defenceless  condition  of  the  province.5 

The  continued  aggressions  of  the  English  under  Scott 
led  Stuyvesant  again  to  ask  advice  from  the  city  officers, 
but  he  met  with  scant  encouragement.  They  replied  they 
were  indifferent  concerning  the  sovereignty  of  the  country, 
whether  it  were  held  by  Dutch  or  English.  "  We  are  of 
opinion,"  they  say,  "  that  the  Burgher  is  not  bound  to  dis 
pute  whether  this  be  the  King  of  England's  soil  or  their 
High  Mightinesses;  but  if  they  will  deprive  us  of  our  prop 
erties,  freedoms,  and  privileges,  to  resist  them  with  our 
lives  or  fortunes."  6  But  Scott's  menacing  attitude  must 

1  O'Callaghan,  II,  495. 

*N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  XIV,  542,  544,  547-8,  551-2;  O'Callaghan,  II, 
498-500;  Brodhead,  I,  723-28;  Flint,  Early  Long  Island,  282-286; 
Thompson,  Long  Island  (second  edition),  II,  320;  Records  of  New 
Amsterdam,  V,  18-24. 

8  Rec.  of  New  Amsterdam,  IV,  318. 

4  O'Callaghan,  II,  490,  note  4.  In  the  return  from  Boswyck,  the 
magistrates  of  that  town  state  that  "the  aforesaid  magistrates  have 
chosen  and  named  two  persons  from  the  same  [village],  with  the 
knowledge  and  consent  of  the  majority  of  the  inhabitants." 

°Rec.  of  New  Amst.,  IV,  342.  *  Ibid.,  V,  20. 


1 88     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

have  seemed  dangerous  to  the  property  and  freedom  of  the 
Dutch,  for  shortly  after  this  we  find  the  New  Amsterdam 
authorities  advising  the  calling  of  another  assembly.1 

The  last  representative  assembly  of  New  Netherland  met 
in  New  Amsterdam  on  April  10,  1664,  and  was  composed 
of  deputies  from  twelve  Dutch  towns.2  The  old  dispute 
regarding  the  duty  of  the  Company  to  protect  the  colony 
furnished  the  principal  theme  for  discussion.  Stuyvesant 
demanded  supplies  and  military  levies  from  the  inhabitants; 
the  deputies  demanded  the  fulfilment  of  the  company's 
promises.  And  with  mutual  recriminations  the  assembly 
closed  its  meeting  without  any  action  for  the  protection  of 
the  province.  It  was  not  long  after  this  that  the  dreaded 
English  attack  came,  and  the  fleet  under  Nicholls  won  an 
unexpectedly  easy  conquest.  Since  the  Company  gave  itself 
"  so  little  concern  about  the  safety  of  the  country  and  its 
inhabitants  as  not  to  be  willing  to  send  a  ship  of  war  to  its 
succor  in  such  pressing  necessity,  nor  even  a  letter  of 
advise/'3  the  people  had  carried  out  their  threat,  that  they 
would  not  longer  "  dwell  and  sit  down  on  an  uncertainty," 
but  would  be  obliged  "  to  seek  by  submission  to  another 
government" 4  the  protection  which  the  Honorable  Com 
pany  refused. 

2.  The  Suffrage  in  Local  Elections. 
A.  In  the  Dutch  Towns. 

There  was  apparently  but  little  popular  political  activity 
in  the  Dutch  towns  of  New  Netherland.5  The  development 
of  these  towns  was  slow,  and  often  it  was  artificially  encour 
aged  by  the  New  Amsterdam  authorities.6  The  colonists 

1  Rec.  of  New  Amsterdam,  V,  33. 
s  O'Callaghan,  II,  505-509. 
*N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  II,  367-68. 

•/wa.,375- 

'This  section  merely  summarizes  the  conclusions  reached  by  the 
writer  in  an  article  in  Amer.  Hist.  Rev.,  VI,  1-18. 

*N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  I,  160-162;  Laws  and  Ordinances  of  New  Neth., 
206,  234,  368. 


The  Suffrage  in  New  York.  189 

lacked  the  common  ownership  of  the  land,  the  common 
political  rights,  and  the  intense  religious  interest  which 
helped  to  form  the  New  England  town.  The  absence  of 
these  centralizing  forces  and  the  liberal  policy  of  the  Dutch 
West  India  Company  in  making  large  individual  land 
grants  greatly  retarded  the  growth  of  towns  among  the 
Dutch.  Many  years  usually  intervened  between  the  date  of 
settlement  of  a  locality  and  the  time  of  its  incorporation. 

When  the  towns  were  incorporated,  the  town  officers 
were  a  schout  and  several  schepens,  who  were  in  some 
cases  first  selected  by  the  local  inhabitants,1  but  thereafter 
in  all  cases,  it  is  believed,  constituted  a  close  corporation- — 
The  existing  magistrates  had  the  power  to  nominate  a 
double  number  of  persons  from  whom  the  director  and 
council  selected  some  to  fill  vacancies  in  the  local  magistracy. 
A  number  of  these  nominations  have  been  preserved,  and  in 
no  case  is  there  evidence  of  popular  election  of  the  proposed 
magistrates.2 

While,  therefore,  the  evidence  points  to  the  absence  of  any 
regular  popular  elections,  there  were  occasional  meetings  of 
the  settlers  to  consider  questions  of  local  importance.  We 
have  records  of  such  a  meeting  in  Brooklvn  in  1660,  to  which 
the  magistrates  "  had  convened  all  the  inhabitants  of  the 
village  of  Breuckelen."  3  In  1663  the  "  town  people"  of 
Harlem  were  summoned  in  meeting  to  take  measures  to  avert 
a  threatened  Indian  attack.4  Similar,  but  not  frequent,  in 
stances  are  to  be  found  concerning  Bergen,5  New  Amster 
dam,6  and  the  Delaware  settlements.7  Stuyvesant,  in  writing 
to  Holland  in  1653,  wishes  to  give  the  impression  that  popu- 

1  Stiles,  Hist,  of  Brooklyn,  I,  45 ;  Laws  and  Ordinances  of  New 
Neth.,  335;  Thompson,  Long  Island  (second  ed.),  II,  155-  In  other 
cases  even  the  first  selection  was  made  in  the  charter  itself,  N.  Y.  Col. 
Doc.,  XIII,  196-198;  Laws  and  Ordinances  of  New  Neth.,  403,  458. 

*  Amer.  Hist.  Rev.,  VI,  9,  notes. 

3  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  XIV,  479. 

4  Riker,  Hist,  of  Harlem,  222. 
>N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  XIII,  232,  319. 

'Records  of  New  Amst.,  IV,  273;   N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  XIV,  220. 
7  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  XII,  151,  154-5,  308;   Pa.  Archives,  Second  Series, 
VII,  511. 


190     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

lar  elections  were  not  uncommon,  but  his  letter  scarcely 
proves  the  fact : 

"  It  is  untrue,  that  any  Magistrates  have  been  appointed  against  the 
laws  of  Netherland  or  against  the  wish  of  the  people.  .  .  .  The  Magis 
trates  of  New  Amsterdam,  before  being  installed  and  taking  the  oath 
in  the  presence  of  the  Director-General,  were  each  by  name  and  sur 
name  and  by  his  office  proclaimed  from  the  front  of  the  Council 
Chamber,  and  the  Community  was  called  upon  to  express  their  objec 
tions.  The  same  is  usually  done  by  the  Director-General  and  Council 
at  the  installation  of  other,  military  officers.  .  .  ."  * 

But  in  all  these  cases  the  popular  action  appears  upon  an  ex 
ceptional  occasion  and  does  not  enter  as  an  integral  part  into 
the  town  life.  Under  such  circumstances  the  suffrage  was 
an  accidental  privilege  rather  than  a  definite  right,  and  con 
sequently  we  find  among  the  Dutch  no  statements  of  the 
suffrage  qualifications.  Where  popular  elections  did  not  take 
place,  there  could  be  no  definition  of  the  suffrage. 

B.  In  the  English  Towns. 

In  the  English  towns  which  developed  under  the  Ne\v 
Netherland  jurisdiction,  political  practice  was  far  more  popu 
lar  than  in  the  Dutch  settlements.2  Director  Kieft  encour 
aged  English  settlers,  and  gave  favorable  charters  to  four 
English  towns  before  a  single  Dutch  village  had  been  incor 
porated.  In  the  charters  of  Newtown,  Hempstead,  Flushing, 
and  Gravesend  there  is  a  degree  of  popular  government  never 
attained  in  the  Dutch  towns.3  The  towns  received  a  definite 
tract  of  land,  with  power  to  build  a  town  and  fortifications, 
and  to  practise  liberty  of  conscience.4  Within  the  town  the 

1  J  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  XIV,  235. 

2  See  Amer.  Hist.  Rev.,  VI,  10-16. 

3  Newtown  chartered,  March  28,  1642 ;    for  charter,  see  O'Callaghan, 
New  Netherland,  I,  425.     Hempstead  chartered   November    16,    1644; 
see  Thompson,  Long  Island  (second  edition),  II,  4-6.     Flushing  char 
tered  October  10,  1645  >    see  Laws  and  Ordinances  of  New  Netherland, 
48-51.    Gravesend  chartered  December  19,  1645  ;   see  Documentary  Hist, 
of  N.  Y.,  I,  629-632. 

4  Gravesend  charter. 


The  Suffrage  in  New  York.  191 

patentees  could  erect  a  civil  organization,  hold  town  meet 
ings,  and  elect  three  magistrates  and  a  schout,  who  should 
be  confirmed  by  the  director.  The  Gravesend  charter 
reads, — 

"  With  libertie  likewise  for  them,  the  stl  pattentees,  theyr  associates 
heyres  etc  to  erect  a  bodye  politique  and  ciuill  combination  amongst 
themselves,  as  free  men  of  this  Province  &  of  the  Towns  of  Grauesend 
&  to  make  such  civill  ordinances  as  the  Maior  part  of  ye  Inhabitants 
ffree  of  the  Towne  shall  thinke  fitting  for  theyr  quiett  &  peaceable 
subsisting  &  to  Nominate  elect  &  choose  three  of  ye  Ablest  approued 
honest  men  &  them  to  present  annuallie  to  ye  Gouernor  Generall  of 
this  Province  for  the  tyme  being,  for  him  ye  said  Gouern1'  to  establish 
and  confirme.  . 


The  Hempstead  charter  contained  almost  exactly  the  same 
terms,  while  the  Newtown  and  the  Flushing  charters  were 
somewhat  less  liberal.  Some  years  after  this  Stuyvesant 
granted  more  restricted  privileges  to  the  English  settlers  at 
Westchester  *  and  Jamaica,2  in  which  he  attempted  to  limit 
them  to  the  customs  of  the  Dutch  towns. 

We  have  considerable  evidence  of  democratic  political 
activities  in  these  English  towns.  In  the  first  place,  their 
annual  returns  of  elections  to  the  director  show  that  the 
officers  were  appointed  in  the  town  meeting  by  a  popular  vote 
and  not  by  nomination  of  the  magistrates.3  In  the  second 
place,  a  number  of  orders  of  the  town  meetings  are  extant 
showing  regular  activity  upon  the  part  of  these  meetings,  and 
throwing  much  light  upon  the  details  of  town  government.4 
There  can  be  no  doubt,  with  this  evidence  before  us,  that  the 
English  townsman  exercised  a  regular  and  strong  control 
over  this  town  government  through  the  popular  elections  and 
the  town  meetings. 

In  such  cases  the  New  England  customs  appear  to  have 
governed  the  suffrage  conditions.  The  four  early  town  char- 

1  March  16,  1656  (N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  XIII,  65-6). 

'March  21,  1656  (Ibid.,  XIV,  33Q-34O). 

*  N.  Y.  Col  Doc.,  XIV,  189,  296,  300,  329,  343,  345,  422,  424,  etc. 

'Ibid.,  128-129;   504-506;   529-530. 


192     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

ters  had  implied  that  the  original  founders  would  be  joined 
by  certain  associates  or  followed  by  successors  and  heirs,  and 
that  the  political  privileges  granted  would  extend  and  de 
scend  to  these  persons.  Associates,  upon  receiving  their  lots 
and  rights  in  the  common  lands,  obtained  at  the  same  time  a 
voice  in  the  town  meeting.1  The  admission  of  such  asso 
ciates  usually  required  the  consent  of  the  town  meeting,  and 
in  Gravesend  none  of  the  original  twenty-eight  owners  could 
sell  his  land  until  he  had  settled  and  built  a  house  in  the 
town ;  while  even  after  he  had  done  so  he  must  first  "  pro 
pound  it  to  the  towne  in  generall  &  in  case  the  towne  would 
not  buy,"  then  he  might  sell  to  outsiders.2  It  was  expressly 
stated,  however,  that  the  sale  might  not  be  made  to  one 
"  notoriouslie  detected  for  an  infamous  person  or  a  disturber 
of  the  common  peace."  Hempstead  excluded  "  quakers  and 
such  like,"  and  required  newcomers  to  show  letters  of  com 
mendation  and  approbation  from  the  authorities  of  the  town 
from  which  they  came.3 

The  elections,  especially  after  the  Quaker  difficulties  had 
arisen,  were  not  always  managed  with  decorum.  A  party 
of  Dutchmen  who  had  purchased  lands  and  houses  in  Graves- 
end  claimed  to  have  been  excluded  from  the  suffrage, 
although  proxy  votes  were  cast  by  the  English  for  those  in 
confinement,  for  others  who  had  left  the  town,  and  for  con 
spirators  against  the  government.4  "An  honest  Dutchman, 
who  was  a  hired  man,"  was  not  permitted  to  vote  in  the  place 
of  his  master  who  was  absent.  It  is  interesting  to  notice 
that  in  this  town  of  Gravesend  occurs  the  only  instance  found 
in  all  the  colonies  of  woman  suffrage.  In  the  summer  of 
1655,  when  the  town  had  neglected  to  make  its  usual  nomi 
nation  of  officers  to  the  director,  Stuyvesant  wrote  to  Lady 
Moody,  the  oldest  patentee  of  the  town,  and  the  other  inhab 
itants,  directing  them  to  perform  their  duty  as  required  by 
their  patent;  and  a  month  later  the  names  of  the  selected 
nominees  were  sent  to  the  director  in  a  document  signed  by 

1  In  Hempstead,  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  XIV,  529. 

*N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  XIV,  128-9. 

9  Ibid.,  529. 

*Ibid.;     see  also  Laws  and  Ordinances  of  New  Ncth.,  338. 


The  Suffrage  in  New  York.  193 

Deborah  Moody  and  John  Tillton  "  as  clerk  in  Behalf  of  the 
Rest."  l 

Stuyvesant,  who  followed  Kieft,  was  opposed  to  the  privi 
leges  which  the  latter  had  granted  the  English.  In  1653  he 
wrote, — 

"  The  English  (on  Long  Island)  do  not  only  enjoy  the  right  of 
nominating  their  own  Magistrates,  but  some  of  them  also  usurp  the 
election  and  appointment  of  such  Magistrates,  as  they  please,  without 
regard  to  their  religion.  Some,  especially  the  people  of  Gravesend, 
elect  libertines  and  Anabaptists,  which  is  decidedly  against  the  laws 
of  the  Netherlands. 

"...  But  if  it  be  made  a  rule,  that  the  selection  and  nomination 
shall  be  left  to  the  people  generally,  whom  it  most  concerns,  then 
every  one  would  want  for  Magistrate  a  man  of  his  own  stamp,  for 
instance  a  thief  would  choose  for  Magistrate  a  thief  and  dishonest 
man,  a  drunkard  a  smuggler,  etc.  .  .  ." 2 

And  in  1656,  when  Englishmen  asked  for  town  charters  for 
settlements  at  Westchester  and  Jamaica,  the  director  replied 
that,  regarding  both  lands  and  election  of  magistrates,  they 
might  be  placed  upon  "  the  footing  and  order  in  use  in  the 
villages  of  Middleburg,  Breuckelen,  Midwout,  and  Ames- 
foort,"  all  of  which  had  the  limited  privileges  of  the  Dutch 
towns.3  The  same  conservatism  is  shown  in  Stuyvesant's 
negotiations  with  some  Milford  inhabitants  who  proposed 
leaving  their  homes  in  Connecticut  and  making  a  settlement 
in  what  is  now  New  Jersey.4 
But  while  the  director  was  opposed  to  popular  government, 

1N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  XIV,  527-529.  See  Flint,  Early  Long  Island, 
104-115,  Brocjhead,  I,  411-412,  for  Lady  Moody's  settlement  at  Graves- 
end.  Compare  the  demand  made  by  Mrs.  Margaret  Brent  for  suffrage 
in  Maryland.  See  Neill,  Virginia  Carolorum,  274-275,  for  sketch  of 
life  of  Lady  Moody. 

•Ibid.,  235. 

3  Ibid.,  339-340.     It  must  be  noted  that  the  towns  of  Jamaica  and 
Westchester   interpreted   their  charters   very  broadly,   and   held   town 
meetings  and  popular  elections  in  the  same  manner  as  the  other  English 
towns  were  accustomed  to  do   (N.   Y.  Col.  Doc.,  XIV,  504-506,  509; 
Bolton's  Hist,  of  Westchester,  Revised  edition,  II,  279-281). 

4  Ibid..  XIII,  209-222. 

T3 


194     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

he  could  not  stamp  it  out  in  the  English  towns.  We  have 
abundant  evidence  of  communal  activity  among  the  English 
settlers ;  their  town  meetings  and  popular  elections  were  held 
almost  continuously  under  the  Dutch  rule ; 1  and  at  last  their 
self-consciousness  found  expression  in  the  union  of  six  towns 
and  the  election  of  President  John  Scott. 

C.  In   New   Amsterdam. 

Nearly  forty  years  after  the  first  settlement  of  New  Neth- 
erland,  a  separate  government  was  erected  for  the  city  of 
New  Amsterdam.  The  first  demand  for  a  distinct  city  gov 
ernment  was  sent  to  Holland  by  the  Nine  Men  in  1649,  when 
their  representatives  were  directed  to  ask  for  a  "  suitable 
municipal  government."  2  It  was  urged  that  this,  together 
with  other  reforms,  would  encourage  the  settlement  of  the 
colony  and  promote  its  prosperity.  A  committee  of  the  States 
General  shortly  afterwards  advised  the  establishment  of  a 
"  Burgher  Government"  in  New  Amsterdam,  consisting  of 
a  sheriff,  two  burgomasters,  and  five  schepens.3  The  report 
was  not  adopted,  but  its  consideration  stirred  up  the  West 
India  Company,  and  on  April  4,  1652,  Stuyvesant  was 
directed  to  erect  a  government  similar  to  that  of  Amsterdam. 
The  officers  were  to  be  those  named  in  the  provisional  order 
of  the  States  General,  selected  from  the  "  honest  and  respect 
able"  persons  of  the  settlement.  The  directors  querulously 
expressed  the  hope  that  some  such  might  be  found  among  the 
inhabitants.4 

It  was  ten  months  after  the  dating  of  this  instruction 
before  Stuyvesant  inaugurated  the  city  government.  He 
allowed  no  popular  election  of  magistrates,  although  after 
the  choice  of  the  officers  they  "  were  each  by  name  and  sur 
name  and  by  his  office  proclaimed,"  and  "  the  community  was 
called  upon  to  express  their  objections."  5  Stuyvesant  does 

1  See  Stuyvesant's  rule  forbidding  town  meetings  in  Flushing,  Laws 
and  Ordinances  of  New  Neth.,  338. 

1 N.  Y.  Col  Doc.,  I,  260. 

•Doc.  Hist,  of  N.  Y.,  I,  598;   N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  I,  387-391- 

*  Ibid.,  599-600. 

8  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  XIV,  235;  O'Callaghan,  II,  212-216;  Brodhead, 
I,  548-54"- 


The  Suffrage  in  New  York.  195 

not  refer  to  any  objections,  and  it  is  unlikely,  under  the  cir 
cumstances,  that  any  were  made. 

Another  three  years  passed  before  the  director  would  agree 
to  a  method  for  renewing  the  magistrates,  although  the  bur 
gomasters  and  schepens  had  twice  petitioned  for  a  change.1 
When  this  was  granted  in  1656,  it  was  so  hedged  about  that 
it  contained  no  provision  for  popular  elections.2  A  double 
nomination  was  to  be  made  annually  by  the  magistrates,  but 
the  existing  magistrates  were  always  to  be  considered  in 
nomination;  the  nominees  must  be  well-qualified  persons, 
favorable  to  the  director  and  council ;  and  a  member  of  the 
council  must  be  present  at  the  meeting  of  the  magistrates 
when  they  selected  their  nominees.  Under  this  arrangement 
the  local  officials  were  annually  elected  until  the  coming  of 
the  English.3 

The  organization  of  the  city  government  was  soon  made 
yet  more  aristocratic.  Stuyvesant  was  not  content  with  for 
bidding  popular  elections  and  compelling  double  nominations 
by  the  magistrates,  nor  even  was  the  presence  of  the  coun 
cillor  at  the  selection  sufficient  for  him.  By  ordinances  of 
January  30  and  February  2,  1657,*  Stuyvesant  limited  nar 
rowly  the  number  of  persons  who  could  hold  the  municipal 
offices.  The  ordinances  established  two  classes  of  citizens, 
one  holding  the  greater  burgherecht,  and  the  other  the 
smaller  burgherecht.  The  first  class  was  composed  of  those 
who  had  held  colonial,  municipal,  military,  or  ecclesiastical 
offices,  or  the  male  descendants  of  such,  or  who  had  paid  fifty 
guilders.  The  second  class  was  made  up  of  those  born  in 
the  city,  or  those  who  had  kept  fire  and  light  for  a  year  and 
a  half,  or  who  kept  shop  and  paid  twenty  guilders.  The 

'In  1654  and  1656;   N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  XIV,  244;   O'Callaghan,  II,  311. 

8  Records  of  New  Amsterdam,  II,  16,  24-29,  282-286;  O'Callaghan, 
II,  370. 

"It  is  to  be  noted,  however,  that  New  Amsterdam  was  not  given  a 
separate  schout  or  sheriff  until  1660.  (Doc.  Hist,  of  N.  Y.,  I,  600.) 

4  Laivs  and  Ordinances  of  New  Neth.,  299-301.  See  J.  F.  Jameson, 
Mag.  Amer.  Hist.,  VIII,  321,  for  a  discussion  of  local  government  in 
Holland  and  the  Netherlands.  Also  O'Callaghan,  I,  391,  II,  338-341 ; 
Brodhead,  I,  452  ff.  For  the  granting  of  the  burgherecht,  see  N.  Y. 
Hist.  Soc.  Coll,  1885,  1-16. 


196     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

tenure  of  municipal  offices  was  limited  to  those  possessing 
the  greater  burgherecht,  who  thus  constituted  a  close  heredi 
tary  office-holding  class. 

In  conclusion,  it  may  be  said  that  regular  popular  suffrage 
was  not  practised  among  the  Dutch  of  New  Netherland. 
Neither  in  the  local  town  governments,  nor  in  the  municipal 
government  of  New  Amsterdam,  nor  in  the  colonial  repre 
sentative  system,  is  there  evidence  of  such  suffrage.  Occa 
sional  meetings  of  the  "  community"  were  held  in  New 
Amsterdam  or  in  the  villages,  and  in  some  cases  a  selection 
of  magistrates  by  the  officials  was  publicly  announced  to  the 
inhabitants.  But  such  cases  cannot  furnish  a  basis  for  a 
general  system  of  elections,  nor  give  rise  to  a  definite  theory 
of  the  suffrage.  Again,  the  elective  system  of  New  Nether- 
land  was  clogged  by  a  process  of  double  and  triple  nomina 
tions,  by  the  arbitrary  power  of  the  director,  and  by  the 
aristocratic  classes  in  the  city  of  New  Amsterdam.  The 
democratic  practices  of  the  English  towns  are  in  marked 
contrast  to  the  ideas  of  Stuyvesant,  but  these  towns  are  not 
an  integral  part  of  New  Netherland.  They  are  off- shoots 
from  the  New  England  town  life,  and  they  bear  all  the 
characteristics  of  the  parent  stem.  The  true  Dutch  towns  are 
miniature  reproductions  of  the  institutions  of  the  Nether 
lands,  with  their  indirect  and  cumbrous  elective  machinery 
exercised  by  a  commercial  aristocracy. 

1 1 .  The  Early  English  Period,  1 664- 1691. 

This  is  the  period  of  struggle  for  the  right  of  representa 
tion,  during  which  no  continuous  representative  system  ex 
isted,  although  one  assembly  was  held  at  the  opening  of  the 
period  and  several  near  its  close.  We  will  but  glance  at  the 
suffrage  in  connection  with  these  assemblies,  without  taking 
up  the  details  of  the  interesting  contest  between  the  colonists 
and  James,  Duke  of  York. 

The  Duke's  patent  had  given  him  absolute  power  to  govern 
all  English  subjects  within  his  territory  by  such  laws  as  he 
or  his  assigns  should  make.  No  mention  was  here  made  of 
the  popular  participation  in  the  framing  of  laws  which  many 
earlier  proprietors  had  been  compelled  to  acknowledge.  The 


The  Suffrage  in  New  York.  197 

Duke  was  unrestrained  in  his  power  except  by  the  feeble 
provision  that  his  laws  should  be  "  as  neare  as  conveniently 
may  be"  agreeable  to  the  statutes  of  England.  His  control 
over  commerce  and  his  legal  ownership  of  the  land  made  the 
property  and  trade  of  the  existing  settlers  insecure;  while 
under  the  charter  he  need  grant  them  no  political  privileges. 
We  look  in  vain  in  this  remarkable  charter  for  any  indication 
of  popular  government. 

But  the  Duke  must  conciliate,  at  least  in  a  degree,  the 
inhabitants  of  his  new  territory,  or  its  possession  would  be 
profitless  to  him.  The  terms  of  capitulation  granted  by 
Colonel  Nicholls,  the  Duke's  representative,  to  the  Dutch 
inhabitants  constituted  a  voluntary  limitation  of  the  pro 
prietor's  power.  By  these  articles,  of  which  there  were  three 
sets,1  the  Dutch  were  admitted  as  English  denizens  upon 
recognizing  the  king's  authority.  They  were  guaranteed  in 
their  lands  and  other  property,  and  might,  if  they  wished, 
leave  the  country  within  a  limited  time  and  take  their  prop 
erty  with  them.  To  those  remaining,  the  Dutch  rules  of 
inheritance  were  promised,  and  they  were  permitted  freedom 
of  conscience  and  worship.  In  all  cases  no  sudden  change 
in  political  organization  was  contemplated,  and  the  existing 
officers  were  directed  to  continue  the  performance  of  their 
duties  for  a  time  at  least. 

On  Long  Island,  where  Nicholls  wished  to  keep  the  good 
will  of  the  English  settlers,  his  promises  were  still  broader. 
He  is  said  to  have  written  to  certain  prominent  men  prom 
ising  that  the  English  inhabitants  of  the  island  should  have 
privileges  equal  to,  if  not  greater  than,  those  enjoyed  by  the 
other  New  England  colonies.2  In  February,  1665,  Nicholls 
proceeded  to  carry  out  his  plans  for  a  government  of  Long- 
Island,  although  he  may  have  previously  erected  Long 
Island,  Staten  Island,  and  the  Bronx  settlements  into  a 
county  called  Yorkshire.  He  now  wrote  to  the  towns  re- 

1  The  three  sets  were  drawn  respectively  for  New  Amsterdam  and  its 
surrounding  territories,  for  the  upper  Hudson  settlements,  and  for  the 
Delaware  regions.  See  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  II,  250-253;  XIV,  559;  III, 
71-73. 

3  Southold  Town  Records,  I,  357;  Kept,  of  N.  Y.  State  Historian, 
1897,  240-242 ;  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  XIV,  555~556. 


198     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

minding  them  of  the  many  grievous  inconveniences  under 
which  they  had  groaned,  and  explaining  how  the  king  at  his 
own  charge  had  shown  his  "  signall  grace  and  honor"  to 
his  subjects  by  conquering  the  Dutch,  and  by  giving  control 
of  the  land  to  the  Duke  of  York.  r  Nicholls  then  states  his 
determination  to  settle  "  good  and  knowne  Laws"  for  the 
country,  with  the  best  advice  and  information  of  a  general 
meeting.1 

This  general  meeting,  called  the  Hempstead  assembly,  is 
the  first  representative  body  held  under  the  English  in  New 
York.  The  representatives  were  to  be  chosen  by  the  several 
towns,  and  Nicholls  directed  that  the  deputies  be  "  chosen 
by  the  major  part  of  the  freemen  only,  which  is  to  be  under 
stood,  _of  all  Persons  rated  according  to  their  Estates, 
whether  English  or  Dutch;"  and  he  recommended  that  the 
people  select  "  the  most  sober,  able,  and  discreet  persons 
without  partiality  or  faction,  the  fruit  and  benefitt  whereof 
will  return  to  themselves  in  a  full  and  perfect  settlement  and 
composure  of  all  controversyes,  and  the  propagacon  of  true 
Religion  amongst  us."  Under  this  provision,  it  is  believed 
that  none  but  freeholders  voted,  although  the  phrase  "  rated 
according  to  their  Estates"  is  not  easily  translatable  at  this 
late  day ;  it  surely  excluded  those  who  paid  only  poll-taxes. 

Thirty-four  deputies  attended  the  meeting  at  Hempstead, 
and  on  March  i,  1665,  the  assembly  accepted  a  code  of  laws 
which  Nicholls  had  drafted,  and  which  came  later  to  be 
called  the  "  Duke's  Laws."  This  code  made  no  provision 
for  a  general  provincial  organization  except  of  the  judicial 
circuits  and  the  military  companies;  it  omitted  all  reference 
to  a  general  representative  assembly,  which  was  so  distinctive 
a  feature  of  the  New  England  colonies,  and  was  one  of  the 
privileges  which  the  Long  Islanders  had  expected  to  receive.2 
In  spite  of  strong  popular  protests  and  numerous  petitions, 
almost  twenty  years  passed  before  the  Duke  agreed  to  an 
assembly. 

At  last,  by  the  instructions  given  to  Governor  Dongan,  on 

1N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  XIV,  564- 

2  Southold  Town  Records,  I,  358-359;  Easthampton  Town  Records, 
I,  241;  Hempstead  Records,  I,  260;  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  XIV,  631-2;  Re 
port  of  State  Historian  for  1897,  240-242. 


The  Suffrage  in  New  York.  199 

January  27,  1682-3,  formal  provision  was  made  for  an 
assembly.1 

".  .  .  there  shall  be  a  General  Assembly  of  all  the  Freeholders,  by  the 
persons  who  they  shall  choose  to  represent  them  in  order  to  consult 
ing  with  yourself  and  the  said  Council  what  laws  are  fitt  and  necessary 
to  be  made  and  established  for  the  good  weale  and  government  of  the 
said  Colony  and  its  Dependencyes,  and  of  all  the  inhabitants 
thereof  .  .  ." 

The  new  governor  arrived  in  the  province  in  August,  1683, 
and  shortly  afterwards,  on  September  13,  warrants  were 
issued  to  the  sheriffs  of  the  province  for  the  election  of  depu 
ties  to  an  assembly.  These  writs  directed  that  the  freehold 
ers  in  the  several  towns  should  take  part  in  the  election,2  and 
a  few  days  later  the  council  entered  upon  its  minutes  the 
order,  "  none  but  freeholders  to  vote  at  the  election."  3  The 
writs  further  established  a  curious  system  of  indirect  voting 
for  certain  parts  of  the  province.  Each  of  the  three  ridings 
of  Yorkshire  was  to  send  two  delegates,  New  York  City  was 
to  elect  four,  Esopus  and  Albany  each  two,  and  Staten 
Island,  Schenectady,  Pemaquid  (Maine),  and  the  islands 
(Martha's  Vineyard,  Nantucket,  Gardiners,  etc.)  were  each 
to  send  one.  On  Long  Island,  on  the  Esopus,  and  on  the 
islands  the  various  towns  or  settlements  were  to  elect  a  cer 
tain  number  of  committeemen,  who  should  meet  in  the  prin 
cipal  town  and  there  elect  the  proper  number  of  deputies 
from  the  riding  or  the  district.4  Thus  this  assembly  differed 
from  that  of  1665  in  the  unit  of  representation,  which  in  the 

1N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  Ill,  331;   N.  Y.  Col.  Laws,  I,  108-110. 
"Ibid.,  XIV,  770-771 ;    Journals  of  Legislative  Council  of  N.    Y.,  I, 
Introduction,  xi. 

8  Calendar  of  Council  Minutes,  33. 

*  Evidence  of  this  method  of  voting  exists  in  the  records  of  East 
Hampton  and  Huntington. 

"At  a  Legall  Towne  meting  there,  [four  persons]  were 
chosen  to  meete  at  Southold  uppon  Wednesday  next  to  Joyne 
with  the  Committee  of  ye  other  Townes  in  Chusing  Two  Rep 
resentatives  for  this  Rideing  to  Meete  at  York  according  to 
order."  East  Hampton  Records,  II,  134-5.  See  also  Hunting- 
ton  Records,  I,  372. 


2OO     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

earlier  one  had  been  the  town,  but  in  the  later  body  was  a 
much  wider  district  or  territory,  to  which  as  yet  no  specific 
name  was  given.1 

The  assembly  in  its  first  act,  which  it  called  a  "  charter," 
provided  for  a  general  organization  of  government,  and 
stated  a  number  of  specific  rights  of  the  citizen.2  Among 
the  many  other  subjects  treated  in  this  remarkable  act  occurs 
the  first  general  statement  of  the  suffrage  qualification : 

"  Every  ^freeholder  within  this  province  and  ffreeman  in  any  Corpora- 
con  Shall  have  his  free  Choise  and  Vote  in  the  Electing  of  the  Repre 
sentatives  without  any  manner  of  constraint  or  Imposicon.  (A)nd  that 
in  all  Eleccons  the  Majority  of  Voices  shall  carry  itt  and  by  freeholders 
is  understood  every  one  who  is  Soe  understood  according  to  the  Lawes 
of  England." 

The  English  practice  at  this  time  was  that  established  by 
the  acts  of  1430  and  1432  fixing  the  qualifications  of  the 
suffrage  as  forty  shillings  income  from  freehold;  and  this 
remained  the  legal  qualification  in  New  York  during  the 
short  existence  of  the  representative  system  under  Governor 
Dongan.  It  is  to  be  noted,  however,  that  the  provincial 
franchise  included  also  freemen  in  corporations.  In  1683 
this  would  have  included  New  York  City  alone,  where  the 
Dutch  burgherecht  had  been  translated  into  the  English  free- 
manship,  and  continued  under  much  the  same  privileges  and 
restrictions.3 

Dongan's  second  assembly  was  elected  in  1685  m  virtue 
of  writs  directed  to  the  sheriffs  of  the  counties,  commanding 
the  freeholders  of  each  county  to  elect  representatives,4  pre 
sumably  in  accordance  with  the  terms  of  the  act  just  quoted. 

In  one  county  at  least,  the  indirect  system  of  voting  estab 
lished  in  1683  was  used  again  in  1685.  An  entry  in  the 
Southampton  records  is  as  follows :  "  At  a  towne  meeting 
held  in  Southampton  with  the  rest  of  the  county  by  the 

1  One  of  the  acts  of  this  first  assembly  was  to  divide  the  colony  into 
twelve  counties ;  N.  Y.  Col.  Laws,  I,  121 ;  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  XIII,  575. 

3  N.  Y.  Col.  Laws,  I,  111-116;  the  charter  was  subsequently  vetoed  by 
James,  after  he  had  become  King;  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  Ill,  357. 

8  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  Ill,  337.    See  post. 

*  Journal  of  Legis.  Council,  Introduction,  xiv. 


The  Suffrage  in  Neiv  York.  201 

major  voote  of  the  pxoes  of  ye  county  major  Howell  was 
chosen  to  be  one  of  ye  assemblymen  for  the  County  of  Suf 
folk,  And  Mr.  Joshua  Hubert  was  the  other."  *  This  elec 
tion  was  the  last  held  under  the  government  of  James  II. 
The  king  soon  discontinued  the  representative  system,  and 
gave  legislative  power  to  thp  governor  and  his  council.2 

Under  the  usurper  Jacob  Leisler,  who  seized  control  of  the 
colonial  government  after  the  news  of  the  English  Revolu 
tion  of  1688  reached  New  York,3  there  were  occasional 
popular  elections,  and  a  partially  representative  system  was 
established.  Leisler,  without  doubt,  felt  the  necessity  of 
strengthening  his  questionable  authority  by  gaining  the  good 
will  of  the  people.  This  he  did  by  procuring  the  popular 
election  of  members  of  a  council  of  safety ; 4  but  many  of 
the  inhabitants  were  opposed  to  his  authority  and  took  no 
part  in  the.  election.  It  is  said  that  his  followers  were  "  some 
of  the  meanest  sort  of  the  Inhabitants/'  5  and  according  to 
one  account  only  one-third  of  the  people  participated  in  the 
elections.6  In  New  York  City  Leisler  ordered  that  certain 
officers,  by  charter  appointive  by  the  king's  governor,  should 
be  elected  by  the  Protestant  freeholders,7  and  sent  writs 
directing  the  popular  election  of  justices  and  militia  officers 
in  the  counties,  all  of  whom  had  previously  been  appointed 
by  the  governor.8  In  February,  1689-90,  Leisler  took 

1  Southampton  Toivn  Records,  II,  286. 

3  See  commission  and  instructions  of  Governor  Dongan,  N.  Y.  Col. 
Doc.,  Ill,  369-375,  382-385. 

3  Doc.  Hist,  of  N.  Y.,  II,  426;  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  Ill,  598. 

*This  committee  was  partially  representative  of  the  province,  two 
persons  coming  from  each  of  the  town  or  settlements  of  New  York 
City,  Brooklyn,  Flatbush,  Flushing,  Newtown,  Staten  Island,  New  Jer 
sey,  Esopus,  and  Westchester.  But  Albany,  Ulster,  and  Suffolk  Coun 
ties,  and  almost  all  of  New  Jersey  were  unrepresented,  and  many  towns 
in  the  several  counties  were  individually  opposed  to  the  revolution. 
See  Doc.  Hist,  of  N.  Y.,  II,  56,  427;  N.  Y.  Col  Doc.,  Ill,  585,  597,  609, 
670,  737- 

6  Ibid.,  427. 

•  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  Ill,  670. 

''Ibid.,  675;  Doc.  Hist.,  II,  35.  The  election  was  carried  through  by  a 
minority  of  the  inhabitants. 

'Ibid.,  655,  674-5. 


202     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

another  step  in  organizing  the  government  by  issuing  writs 
for  the  election  of  "  proper  and  fit"  persons  to  act  as  repre 
sentatives  of  the  counties.1  All  the  counties  except  one  were 
represented  in  this  assembly,2  but  "  Suffolk  County  would 
not  meddle  with  it."  3  The  elections  do  not  appear  to  have 
been  fully  participated  in  by  the  people.  In  New  York 
City  Leisler  personally  directed  the  elections,  at  which  only  a 
few  persons,  "  all  off  his  side,"  voted.  "  From  the  other 
Counties  came  Representatives  onely  chosen  by  a  few  people 
off  their  side  and  very  weak  men."  4 

Leisler  failed  in  gaining  the  support  of  the  influential  in 
habitants.  His  friends  did  not  belong  to  the  former  govern 
ing  class,  but  he  must  have  gained  adherents  among  the 
poorer  classes,  since  his  popular  elections  would  admit  them 
to  a  greater  share  in  the  provincial  government.  But  a 
revolutionist  is  often  forced  to  ignore  the  forms  of  law ;  and 
while  Leisler  attempted  to  maintain  the  elective  system,  yet 
his  evident  interferences  in  the  system  made  the  suffrage 
little  more  than  a  farce.  The  merchants  of  New  York,  in  a 
petition  to  the  king  and  queen,  could  find  no  better  name 
for  his  followers  "  than  a  Rable,  those  who  formerly  were 
scarce  thought  fit  to  bear  the  meanest  offices."  5  A  gathering 
of  freeholders  on  Long  Island  called  Leisler  a  "  Tyrant," 
who,  they  said,  acted  upon  Catiline's  maxim  that  "  The  Ills 
that  I  have  done  can  not  be  safe  but  by  attempting  greater."  6 
Thus,  in  spite  of  his  democratic  utterances,  Leisler's  acts 
were  not  accepted  by  the  people  of  the  province,  nor  approved 
by  the  English  authorities,  who,  in  November,  1689,  com 
missioned  a  new  governor  for  the  colony. 

If  the  Duke's  laws  made  no  provision  for  a  general  elective 
system,  they  did  not  lack  rules  for  the  local  suffrage.  The 
laws  were  drawn  from  New  England  sources,  and  yet  it  is 
remarkable  that  Nicholls  cut  out  the  whole  subject  of  free- 
manship,  both  of  the  colony  and  the  town.  This  principle, 

1  Doc.  Hist.,  II,  73- 

2  Journal  of  Legislative  Council  of  N.  Y.,  Introduction,  xxiv. 
8  AT.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  Ill,  717. 

•/Hi 

8  Ibid.,  748-9. 

•Ibid.,  754H5. 


The  Suffrage  in  New  York.  203 

copied  from  English  corporation  practice,  received  an  ex 
tended  connotation  in  America,  and  lay  at  the  basis  of  local 
and  colonial  suffrage  in  New  England  during  Nicholls's 
time.  It  must  be  remembered  that  Nicholls  and  his  fellow- 
commissioners  were  directed  by  their  instructions  to  inquire 
into  this  exclusive  freemanship  to  which  the  king  objected.1 
His  practical  knowledge  of  the  workings  of  the  freeman- 
ship  principle  in  New  England  must  have  determined  Nich 
olls  to  omit  it  from  his  code.  Although  the  word  freeman 
occurred  scores  of  times  in  the  New  Haven  and  Massachu 
setts  codes,  from  which  Nicholls  drew  his  legislation,  yet  it 
is  sedulously  erased  from  the  Duke's  laws,  and  even  the 
allied  subjects  of  residence  and  admission  of  inhabitants  are 
not  mentioned.2  The  New  England  codes  forbade  a  man 
settling  in  a  town  without  the  consent  of  the  local  officers 
or  the  town  meeting;  but  this,  too,  savored  of  the  freeman 
idea  and  was  rejected  by  Nicholls.  In  addition  to  fostering 
political  and  ecclesiastical  intolerance,  the  New  England 
freemanship,  whether  of  town  or  province,  was  opposed  to 
the  powers  granted  by  charter  to  the  Duke  of  York ; 3  and 
Nicholls  also  had  the  example  of  Stuyvesant  before  him  in 
opposing  the  freemanship  idea.4  Thus  there  were  abundant 
reasons  for  Nicholls's  refusal  to  adopt  the  freemanship  prin 
ciple;  his  own  experience  in  New  England,  his  instructions, 


1 N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  Ill,  51-54,  57-63,  84,  110-113;  Records  of  Massa 
chusetts  Bay,  IV,  pt.  II,  129,  173-174,  186  ff.,  200-211,  218  ff. 

3  The  word  freeman  does  occur  once  in  the  Laws,  but  in  that  case  it 
means  free  man,  N.  Y.  Col.  Laws,  I,  36.  The  words  freeman  or  free 
men  are  used  twenty-five  times  in  the  New  Haven  Laws  of  1656,  and 
fifty-five  times  in  the  Massachusetts  laws  of  1660. 

8  By  the  Duke's  charter  he  and  his  heirs  are  given  power  "  to  admit 
such  and  so  many  person  and  persons  to  trade  and  traffique  unto  and 
within  the  terrytoryes  and  islands  aforesaid  and  into  every  and  any 
part  and  parcell  thereof  and  to  have  possesse  and  enjoy  any  lands  or 
hereditaments  in  the  parts  and  places  aforesaid.  .  .  ." 

"  None  of  the  Townes  of  N.  Netherlands  are  troubled  with  in- 
habitance,  the  which  doe  not  Lyke  her  or  her  Magistrates,  beinge 
reserved  that  they  doe  not  admitt  any  inhabitance  without  approbation 
and  acknowledgement  of  the  Director  Generall  and  Counsell.  .  .  ." 
N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  XIII,  211. 


2O4     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

the  Duke's  charter,  and  Dutch  custom  were  all  opposed  to 
the  exclusiveness  of  the  New  England  corporation. 

But,  although  the  laws  made  no  provision  for  these  sub 
jects,  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  the  towns,  at  least  in 
Long  Island,  acted  upon  the  New  England  custom.  The 
town  books  show  many  actions  and  by-laws  of  the  town 
meetings  relating  to  the  admission  of  new  inhabitants.1  A 
person  <k  not  legally  accepted"  is  ordered  to  leave  Easthamp- 
ton,2  and  a  "  notorious  thief"  is  rejected  as  an  inhabitant.3 
In  Southampton,  in  1676,  after  a  division  of  the  town  lands 
had  been  made,  the  holders  of  the  land  could  not  sell  or  let 
them  to  any  one  except  he  were  "  approved  of  by  ye  Justices, 
the  minister  ye  constables  and  overseers  of  ye  town."  4  And 
in  Hempstead  no  "  unresident"  person  could  settle  in  the 
town  without  the  consent  of  the  town.5  It  is  evident  from 
these  few  illustrations  that  the  towns  kept  control  of  the 
admission  of  inhabitants,  and  even  imposed  severe  conditions 
upon  intending  settlers,  as  when,  in  Southampton,  they  must 
be  acceptable  to  four  sets  of  officials,  including  the  minister. 

Since  the  Duke's  laws  omitted  the  subject  of  freemanship, 
it  might  be  supposed  that  Nicholls  would  substitute  some 
other  form  of  qualification  for  the  suffrage.  But,  in  fact,  he 
did  not  clearly  define  the  voting  class.  The  elective  officers 
under  the  laws  were  constables,  town  overseers,  gaugers  of 
cask,  militia  officers,  church  wardens,  and  ministers.6  In 
the  case  of  militia  officers  alone  the  voting  class  is  distinct, 
for  these  officers  are  to  be  elected  by  "  the  plurality  of  voyces 
of  the  Soldiers."  7 

In  the  suffrage  for  the  other  officers,  four  different  expres- 

1  E.g.,  East-Hampton  Records,  I,  282,  288,  324 ;    II,  175. 
*  Records,  I,  371. 
8  Ibid.,  II,  175. 
'  Ibid.,  255. 

6  Ibid.,  28. 

fl  Other  officers  not  mentioned  in  the  laws  were  occasionally  elected 
by  the  towns ;  see  Hempstead  Records,  I,  228 ;  Huntington  Records, 
I,  359-300. 

7  N.  Y.  Col.  Laws,  I,  50.     All  persons  over  sixteen  years  of  age,  in 
cluding  servants,  and  excluding  certain  judicial  and  ecclesiastical  offi 
cials  and  a  few  others,  were  to  attend  the  militia  trainings. 


The  Suffrage  in  New  York.  205 

sions  are  used  in  describing  the  electors :  "  householders," 
"  inhabitants  householders,"  "  freeholders,"  "  Inhabitants 
freeholders.  Householders."  In  spite  of  the  seeming  variety, 
it  is  believed  that  these  phrases  all  refer  to  the  same  class  of 
citizens ; l  and  that  the  words  "  inhabitants"  and  "  house 
holders"  are  to  be  taken  not  in  a  substantive,  but  an  adjec 
tive,  sense,  qualifying  the  word  "  freeholders."  The  word 
inhabitant  meant  a  householder,2  and  the  suffrage  must  have 
been  limited  to  inhabiting  and  householding  freeholders. 

Although  it  is  clear  that  Nicholls  meant  to  limit  the  suf 
frage  to  freeholders,  yet  there  is  no  statement  of  the  size  of 
freehold  required ;  and  perhaps  the  variance  in  local  condi 
tions  made  it  impracticable  to  adopt  a  general  qualification. 

But  the  lack  of  definiteness  led  to  many  contests  and  dis 
puted  elections  in  the  several  towns.  It  was  the  natural  ten 
dency  of  the  original  proprietors  in  the  towns  to  desire  to 

1  The  evidence  for  this  belief  is  drawn  from  two  sources :  (a)  the 
internal  evidence  of  the  Laws;  and  (b)  the  practice  of  the  towns. 

(a)  From  the  Laws.     In  one  place  the  Laws  speak  of  the  elec 
tion  of  overseers  by  the  "  Housholders,"  and  in  another  place,  by 
the  "  freeholders ;"    and  similarly  the  election  of  the  minister  is 
said  to  be  by  "  the  Inhabitants  housholders ;"    and  by  the  "  In 
habitants  freeholders  housholders." 

(b)  From  the  town  practice.     The  town  records  use  the  words 
as   loosely  as   do   the  Laws.     For  instance,   in   Southampton  the 
phrases  occur,  "  inhabitants  or  freeholders  ;"   "  freeholders ;"  "  free 
holders  and  Inhabitants"  (Records,  II,  279,  295,  305;    also  I,  135- 
138  note).     In  1672  an  election  in  Hempstead  was  contested  be 
cause  persons  had  voted  who  were  freeholders  indeed,  but  held 
only  small  tracts,  and  it  was  maintained  that  a  man  must  be  not 
only  a  freeholder,  but  a  freeholder  of  a  certain  number  of  acres, 
in  order  to  possess  the  suffrage  (N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  XIV,  667).     In 
1676  Andros  granted  a  patent  to  the  town  officers  of  Southold,  for 
themselves  and  "their  associats,  the  freeholders  and  Inhabitants  of 
the  sd  Town,"  and  subsequently  these  officers  state,  "  All  which 
freeholders  we  doe  fully  own  ...  to  be  our  onely  associats"  (Town 
Records,  II,  8-12).     The  last  case  shows  that  the  town  officers 
believed  Inhabitants  to  be  a  qualification  of  the  word  freeholders; 
a  man  must  be  an  inhabitant  and  a  freeholder  to  be  qualified  to 
vote. 

a "  He  who  hath  a  house  in  his  hands  in  a  town,  may  be  said  to  be 
an  Inhabitant."  Jacob's  Law  Dictionary,  London,  1797.  See  post, 
Chap.  XL 


206     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

limit  the  right  of  suffrage  to  themselves  or  those  who  had  an 
equivalent  share  in  the  town  lands.  As  the  towns  increased 
in  population,  or  lands  were  divided  among  the  descendants 
of  the  early  settlers,  or  poorer  persons  bought  small  tracts, 
there  arose  a  class  made  up  of  freeholders,  indeed,  but  free 
holders  who  were  not  on  a  plane  of  economic  or  social 
equality  with  the  original  proprietors.  Under  these  circum 
stances,  a  contest  between  the  two  classes  was  bound  to 
occur,  and  the  governor  usually  threw  his  influence  on  the 
side  of  the  wealthier  class. 

As  early  as  1666  the  Court  of  Assizes  ordered  that  the 
"  Dividing  of  Towne  Lotts,  thereby  multiplying  poor  free 
men  and  votes,  to  be  rectified  by  the  Sessions;"1  but  the 
remedy  was  evidently  not  satisfactory,  for  again  in  1670 
the  Long  Island  towns  petitioned  for  legislation  against 
"  divers  poor  inconsiderable  persons,  who  though  they  have 
but  a  Small  Portion  of  a  Lott,  yett  Expect  to  give  their  votes 
in  Town  Courts  equal  with  ye  best  freeholders."  2  The  peti 
tioners  feared  that  this  tendency  might  "  in  tyme  prove  to  ye 
destruction  of  ye  place,  in  that  it  will  come  to  be  governed  by 
ye  worst  and  least  concerned  of  ye  Inhabitants;"  and  again 
the  Assizes  referred  the  matter  to  the  Court  of  Sessions.  In 
the  same  spirit  was  the  decision  of  the  governor  and  council 
in  1680,  limiting  the  suffrage  in  Flushing  in  public  and  town 
matters  to  those  who  held  at  least  sixty  acres  of  land,  the 
proportion  to  which  the  original  settlers  were  entitled.3  And 
at  a  somewhat  later  period  the  voting  upon  land  questions 
in  Southampton  was  taken  not  by  persons,  but  by  "  fifties," 
keeping  up  the  equality  of  votes  according  to  the  original 


*Rept.  of  State  Historian,  1896,  341. 

*N.  Y.  Col.  Laws,  I,  83. 

"  Whereas  the  former  constitution  of  the  sd  Towne,  at  their  first 
settlement,  in  the  yeare  1654,  was  in  dividing  their  home  Lotts,  into  4 
acres  a  piece,  then  addicon  of  six  acres,  &  after  that  50  more  to  each 
Inhabitant  None  for  the  future  shall  be  esteemed  a  Freeman  of  s^ 
Towne  that  hath  not  sixty  acres  of  land  within  its  limits,  besides 

meadows &  such  as  shall  have  the  like  proporcon  of  land  & 

no  other  other  to  be  esteemed  Freemen  for  votes  in  publick  or  other 
town  matters."    N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  XIV,  751. 


The  Suffrage  in  New  York.  207 

proportion  of  fifty  acres  apiece.1  But  the  governor's  power 
was  not  always  extended  to  the  large  landholders,  and  in  a 
disputed  election  case  in  Hempstead  in  1672  the  smaller  free 
holders  were  upheld  in  their  claim  to  the  right  to  vote.2 

It  was  the  latter  policy  which  was  to  be  adopted  as  the 
general  principle  for  the  colony  and  local  elections  in  the 
next  period  of  New  York  history.  The  increase  in  the  value 
of  land  and  the  growth  of  population  would  make  the  fifty 
or  sixty  acres  requirement  a  burdensome  one ;  and  the  later 
practice  required  the  freehold  to  be  of  a  certain  value  rather 
than  of  a  certain  size.3  In  some  of  the  Long  Island  towns  it 
is  interesting  to  note  a  tendency  towards  proxy  voting,  but 
it  does  not  appear  to  have  become  a  general  policy  in  any 
town.4 

The  provisions  of  the  Duke's  laws,  which  we  have  been 
discussing,  did  not  at  first  hold  good  outside  of  Yorkshire ;  5 

1  Even  fractions  of  a  proportion  were  counted.     The  town  meeting 
"  having  under  the  consideration  the  Laying  out  a  division  of  Land 
proceed  to  a  voote  by  proxees   as   followeth  64^   fifties  were  for  a 
division,  79^4  fifties  were  for  no  division."     Town  Records,  II,   143, 
April  2,  1700. 

2  This  election  hinged  upon  the  votes  of  certain  persons  who  were 
said  to  "  have  small  parcells  of  land  &  have  no  relation  to  the  Towne, 
equall    w*h    ye    Ancient    Inhabitants,    some    Lotts    being    divided    into 
severall  shares."    The  decision  of  the  governor  states  that  the  claimants 
were  "  Capacitated  by  the  Law  to  give  their  Votes  as  ffre-holders." 
N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  XIV,  667. 

8  See  post. 

*  One  case  has  already  been  referred  to  in  the  early  history  of 
Gravesend,  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  XIV,  529.  In  Hempstead,  in  1684,  we 
have  the  express  provision  "  that  it  is  agreed  upon  by  the  major  vote 
that  for  the  future  none  of  the  Inhabitants  of  this  towne  bring  in 
any  Vots  more  then  their  owne  except  it  bee  through  Sixness  or 
Lameness  and  if  Soe  then  they  Send  and  order  on  the  publique  towne 
meeting  that  they  gave  him  that  brings  their  vote  their  order  soe  to 
precede  for  them  and  noe  other  votes  to  be  of  any  Effect;"  Tozvn 
Records,  I,  409,  April  18,  1684. 

In  Southampton,  in  1700,  voting  on  the  public  land  matters  was 
said  to  be  by  "proxees;"  but  this  may  have  meant  ballots  (Town 
Records,  II,  143). 

'Long  Island,  Staten  Island,  and  Westchester. 


2o8     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

but  they  were  gradually  extended  to  the  upper  Hudson  *  and 
Delaware  settlements,  although  it  is  believed  they  were  never 
fully  in  force  in  the  Delaware  region.2  In  New  York  City 
there  were  no  elective  offices  until,  in  1683,  Governor  Don- 
gan  granted  limited  privileges  by  which  the  mayor,  recorder, 
sheriff,  coroner,  and  town  clerk  were  to  be  appointed  by  the 
governor,  and  the  freemen  in  six  wards  elected  their  own 
aldermen,  common  councilmen,  constables,  overseers  of  the 
poor,  assessors,  scavengers,  questmen,  and  other  officers.3 
The  word  freemen  was  not  here  defined,  but  it  may  have  had 
the  meaning  of  the  word  in  the  Dutch  days.  Three  years 
later,  when  a  formal  charter  was  granted  to  the  city,4  Don- 
gan  permitted  the  popular  election  of  aldermen,  assistants, 
and  petty  constables,  but  the  other  municipal  officers  were 
chosen  by  the  governor  or  the  city  authorities.  The  elective 
officers  were  to  be  "  chosen  by  Majority  of  Voices  of  the 
Inhabitants  of  each  Ward ;"  a  most  vague  provision,  which 
later  called  for  more  precise  definition.5  Similar  provisions 
are  found  in  the  Albany  charter  of  the  same  year.6 

During  the  short  period  of  legislative  activity  from  1683- 
85,  there  were  few7  changes  in  the  provisions  of  the  Duke's 
Laws  respecting  local  suffrage.  In  one  case  we  find  the 
word  freeman  7  linked  with  that  of  freeholder ;  in  another 
case  the  word  freeholders  alone  is  used ;  8  and  in  still  another 
act  the  popular  election  of  militia  officers  was  discontinued.9 

In  concluding  the  subject  of  the  local  suffrage  during  the 
years  1665-1691,  it  may  be  said  that  while  with  two  excep- 

1  See  Amer.  Hist.  Rev.,  VI,  717-718;    Munsell's  Annals  of  Albany, 
VI,  20;    VII,  97;    Hist.  Coll.  of  Albany,  IV,  390-509  passim;    N.  Y. 
Col.  Doc.,  XIII,  428,  438,  449,  459,  471. 

2  See  treatment  of  Suffrage  in  Delaware. 

3  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  Ill,  338-9. 

*  April  27,  1686,  Col.  Laws,  I,  181-195. 
5  See  post. 

*  N.  Y.  Col.  Laws,  I,  195-216;    Munsell,  Annals  of  Albany,  II,  62-87. 
''Ibid.,  131,  chap.  9  of  acts  of  March  i,  1683.    Assessors  and  treasurers 

were  to  be  elected  by  the  major  vote  of  the  freeholders  and  freemen  of 
each  city,  town,  and  county. 

"Act  of  October  21,  1684,  Col.  Laws,  I,  143. 

9  Act  of  October  27,  1684,  Col.  Laws,  I,  161. 


The  Suffrage  in  New  York.  209 

tions  the  suffrage  franchise  was  limited  to  the  land-holding 
class,  yet  no  definite  amount  of  land  was  set  as  a  necessary 
qualification.  The  exceptions  to  this  qualification  are  to  be 
found  in  the  case  of  the  freeman  in  New  York  City  during 
the  period  1683-1686,  and  the  election  of  militia  officers  by 
all  the  soldiers  down  to  1684.  The  most  difficult  question  is 
that  arising  out  of  the  use  of  the  word  "  inhabitants;"  while 
the  most  picturesque  features  are  to  be  found  in  the  struggle 
of  the  small  freeholders  to  obtain  the  franchise,  and  in  the 
partial  proxy  system  for  the  election  of  representatives. 


III.   The  Later  English  Period,  1 69 1-1775.     • 
i.  The  Provincial  Suffrage. 

The  basis  for  the  suffrage  franchise  in  the  royal  colonies 
is  to  be  found,  first,  in  the  commissions  and  instructions 
given  by  the  English  government  to  the  colonial  governors ; 
secondly,  in  the  laws  passed  by  the  colonial  assemblies  from 
time  to  time ;  and  finally,  in  the  local  customs  and  interpre 
tations  which  arose  under  these  instructions  and  these  laws. 
In  New  York,  the  commission  of  Governor  Slaughter,  of 
November  14,  1689,  marks  the  legal  beginning  of  a  perma 
nent  representative  system.  The  temporary  instructions  sent 
by  William  and  Mary  to  Lieutenant-Governor-  Nicholson 
in  July,  1689,  did  indeed  authorize  him  to  call  to  his  assist 
ance  as  many  as  necessary  of  the  principal  freeholders  and 
inhabitants  of  the  province.1  But  this  vague  provision  would 
not  have  furnished  an  adequate  basis  for  an  assembly  even  if 
Nicholson  had  remained  in  control.  And,  as  events  proved, 
it  was  Leisler,  and  not  the  regularly  commissioned  governor, 
who  attempted  to  revive  the  representative  form  of  govern 
ment.  Since  Nicholson  did  not  have  opportunity  to  carry 
out  the  power  given  to  him,  and  since  Leisler's  assemblies 
did  not  possess  royal  sanction,  we  must  date  the  revival  of 
representation  from  Slaughter's  time. 

By  this  commission  the  governor  could  call  assemblies  of 
the  "  inhabitants  being  freeholders,"  according  to  the  usages 

1 N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  Ill,  606. 

14 


I 

210     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

of  the  other  American  plantations.1  The  members  of  the 
assembly  were  to  be  "  duely  elected  by  the  Major  part  of  the 
Freeholders  of  the  respective  Countyes  and  places;"  and  leg 
islative  power  was  vested  in  the  governor,  council,  and  as 
sembly.2  The  phraseology  of  this  document  was  closely 
copied  in  the  commissions  of  later  governors,3  and  the  Eng 
lish  government  contented  itself  with  a  general  restriction  of 
suffrage  to  freeholders  without  attempting  to  define  the 
word. 

The  first  assembly  under  Slaughter  took  up  the  question 
and  gave  the  word  freeholder  a  legal  meaning.  By  the  act 
of  May  13,  1691,  it  was  provided 

"  That  every  freeholder  within  this  Province  and  freeman  in  any 
Corporation  shall  have  his  free  choice  &  voat  in  the  electing,  of  the 
Representatives  without  any  manner  of  Constraint  or  Imposition ;  and 
that  in  all  elections  the  Majority  of  votes  shall  carry  itt,  and  by  free 
holders  is  to  be  understood  every  one  who  shall  have  fourty  shillings 
P  Annum  in  freehold."  * 

This  act,  it  will  be  seen,  is  identical  with  the  requirement  of 
1683,  except  that  forty  shillings  income  from  freehold  is 
now  expressed  instead  of  giving  a  mere  reference  to  the 
English  qualification.  The  distinction  between  the  county 
and  the  borough  suffrage,  which  was  to  continue  so  long 
in  New  York  history,  is  also  established  by  this  act.5 
For  a  few  years  the  colony  enjoyed  in  comparative  peace 

1  N.  Y.  Col.  Laws,  I,  221 ;  N.  Y.  Col  Doc.,  Ill,  623. 

2  The  relation  of  the  governor  to  the  council  in  legislation  later  led 
to  disputes  which  were  appealed  to  England  for  decision. 

1  In  one  commission,  that  of  Governor  Hunter,  dated  September  15, 
1709,  occur  the  words  "  assemblies  of  the  Freeholders  and  Planters" 
(N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  V,  92-98)  ;  but  the  latter  word  does  not  again  occur. 

4  AT.  Y.  Col.  Laws,  I,  244. 

"Under  the  royal  government  the  Long  Island  towns,  for  a  time  at 
least,  kept  up  the  proxy,  or  indirect  methods  of  election  which  they 
had  adopted  in  1683,  as  the  following  extract  shows :  "  At  a  towne 
meeting  (being  legally  Convened)  ordered  that  by  a  Majr  vote  that 
Capt  John  Wheeler  should  on  ye  nth  of  ye  Instant  go  to  Southampton 
[to]  carry  our  Towne  proxes  for  the  electing  of  Representatives  for 
this  County  of  Suffolk"  (East-Hampton  Town  Records,  II,  281 ;  Octo 
ber  5,  1692). 


The  Suffrage  in  New  York.  211 

its  newly  found  privilege  of  representation,  and  apparently 
did  not  feel  the  need  of  an  elaborate  regulation  of  elections. 
But  by  1698  serious  election  difficulties  had  arisen.  We  can 
not  follow  all  the  party  struggles  which  led  to  these  dis 
orders,  but  both  sides  seemed  willing  to  adopt  unscrupulous 
methods.  In  this  year  it  was  said  that  the  representatives 
elected  were  mainly  "  men  of  no  great  figure,  Taylors  and 
other  mean  conditions ;"  l  that  the  sheriff  of  Orange  County 
had  not  permitted  a  single  freeholder  to  vote,  and  yet  had 
returned  persons  as  legally  members  of  the  assembly ;  2  and 
that  eleven  out  of  the  nineteen  members  of  the  assembly  held 
positions  by  disputed  elections.3  The  governor  was  forced 
to  dissolve  the  assembly ;  but  in  the  succeeding  election  there 
was  fighting  in  a  number  of  places,  not  without  some  broken 
heads  in  consequence,  and  contested  seats  in  the  assembly.4 

These  disorders  showed  the  need  of  a  more  comprehensive 
election  law,  and  at  the  session  of  1699  an  ac^  5  was  passed 
which  remained  in  force  without  substantial  change  until  the 
Revolution.  In  its  preamble  the  act  told  the  conditions 
which  called  for  its  passage : 

"  Whereas  of  late  ye  Election  of  ye  Representives  to  serve  in  Assem 
bly  in  ye  respective  Cittys  &  Countyes  of  this  province  have  been 
managed  with  great  ourage  tumult  &  Deceit  to  ye  grevious  oppression 
And  Depriving  of  ye  Subject  of  his  Chiefest  Birthright  in  Chuseing 
of  his  Representatives  in  Assembly  for  Remedy  whereof  for  ye  time 
to  come  and  y't  ye  Subject  may  freely  enjoy  his  undoubted  right  of 
Electing  his  Representatives  without  Disturbance  or  molestacon.  Bee 
it  enacted,"  .  .  .  etc. 

The  qualification  for  the  suffrage  was  changed  from  the  fif 
teenth  century  English  law  to  one  better  suited  to  colonial 
conditions;  that  is/  the  forty-shilling  income  was  changed  to 

1 N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  IV,  384. 

2  Ibid.,  395 ;   384 ;   Ruttenber,  History  of  the  County  of  Orange,  45-46. 

8  Ibid. 

4  Ibid.,  507;  Smith,  History  of  Ne^v  York,  97,  99  (London  edition  of 
1757). 

"Act  of  May  16,  1699,  N.  Y.  Col.  Laws,  I,  405  ff.  Repealed  by  act 
of  November  27,  1702,  but  the  repealing  act  was  disallowed  by  the 
Queen  in  1708.  Cf.  English  statute,  7  and  8  Wm.  III.,  chap  25. 


212     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

a  requirement  that  the  elector  possess  lands  or  tenements  to 
the  value  of  forty  pounds,  in  freehold,  free  of  all  incum- 
brances,  and  have  held  them  at  least  three  months  before  the 
election.  Representatives  were  to  have  the  same  qualifica- 

\  tions  as  electors,  and  both  elector  and  elected  must  be  over 

i  twenty-one  years  of  age.  r  In  case  a  poll  were  necessary,  the 
sheriff  was  authorized  to  appoint  sworn  clerks  to  set  down 
the  name  of  each  elector,  the  place  of  his  freehold,  and  the 
name  of  the  person  for  whom  he  should  vote.  Any  candidate 
might  require  any  elector  to  take  oath  that  he  was  a  free 
holder,  that  he  had  not  been  previously  polled  at  the  election, 
and  had  not  procured  his  freehold  in  order  to  gain  a  voice 
Jn  the  election.  In  New  York  City  and  Albany  the  suffrage"; 

I  was  open  to  all  freemen  of  the  corporations  who  had  resided' 

\in  the  city  three  months  before  the  election. 

This  act  did  not  provide  for  election  by  ballot,  nor  did  it 
include  the  elaborate  provisions  against  fraud  and  error 
which  are  to  be  found  in  the  laws  of  Pennsylvania  and  Dela 
ware.  Yet  from  1708  to  the  Revolution  it  remained  the 
principal  election  law  of  the  colony.  Frequent  legislation 
was  had  upon  the  subject  of  local  suffrage,  but  the  colonial 
elections  were  permanently  limited  to  persons  possessing 
forty  pounds  value  of  freehold,  or  holding  freemanship  in 
either  of  the  two  cities. 

The  act  of  1699  did  not  have  the  quieting  effect  upon 
elections  which  its  authors  had  hoped  to  gain  from  it.  The 
party  troubles  continued,1  and  in  1701  the  legislature  passed 
a  number  of  partisan  measures;  all  of  which,  however,  the 
succeeding  legislature  of  1702  repealed,  together  with  the 
election  act  of  i699.2  But  the  repealing  act  in  turn  was  dis- 

1  Smith's  Hist,   of  N.   Y.    (London  ed.  of  1757),  99  ff;    Journal  of 
Legislative  Council  of  N.   Y.,  I,  168-170;    Colonial  Laws,  I,  450-523; 
N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  IV,  958. 

2  N.   Y.  Col.  Laws,  I,  523.     The  preamble  to  the  repealing  act  is  as 
follows :    "  For  as  much  as  Several  Acts  and  Laws  have  lately  been 
past  in  this   Colony,   with  plausible  and   Colourable  Titles   and   pre 
tences,  some  of  them  Incongruous,  and  unjust  in  themselves,  others  to 
obtain  private  and   Sinister  ends,  under  the  Cloak  of  publick  good ; 
many  pretended  Acts  as  Laws,  by  persons  unquallified  by  Right  or  Law 
to  sit  or  act  in  the  Legislative  power,  and  by  Several  as  were  not  the 


The  Suffrage  in  New  York.  213 

allowed  by  the  queen  on  June  26,  1708,  after  the  Crown 
had  refused  its  consent  to  a  number  of  other  acts  of  the 
period,  1700-1 702. 1  This  disallowance  of  the  repealing  act 
restored  legality  to  the  act  of  1699,  and  brought  back  to  the 
statute-book  a  number  of  other  laws,  the  principal  among 
which  for  our  purpose  was  one  defining  the  nature  of  free 
hold  requisite  for  voters,  and  excluding  Catholics  from  the 
suffrage. 

The  act  of  October  18,  1701,  extended  the  word  freeholder 
to  include  any  person  who  held  land  for  his  life  or  his  wife's 
life,  and  declared  him  legally  qualified  to  vote  if  the  land 
were  in  sufficient  quantity.  Mortgages  upon  his  freehold 
should  not  debar  a  man  from  the  suffrage,  if  he  were  in  pos 
session  and  derived  an  income  from  the  property.  In  this 
form  the  freeholder  clause  remained  unchanged  until  the 
Revolution,  with  the  exception  of  a  minor  clause  in  an  act 
of  1769,  which  provided  that  the  holding  of  lands  in  trust 
for  a  corporation  or  for  pious  purposes  should  not  qualify 
the  trustee  for  the  exercise  of  the  suffrage.2 

Choice  of  the  People,  and  all  of  them,  instead  of  being  for  the  profit 
and  advantage  of  the  Subject,  as  they  ought  to  be,  have  been  and 
prov'd  to  the  Distruccon  of  property,  the  confining  and  Enervating  of 
Liberty,  Ruinous  to  Trade,  to  the  Impoverishing  of  the  People,  a  Dis 
couragement  to  Industry  and  hurtfull  to  the  Settlement  and  prosperity 
of  the  Colony."  (Act  of  November  27,  1702.) 

1N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  IV,  1026;  V,  48. 

-  Act  of  May  20,  1769,  Col.  Laws,  IV,  1094.  The  act  was  subse 
quently  disapproved  by  king,  June  6,  1770.  The  contested  election  of 
1737  led  to  a  decision  by  the  legislature  that  those  who  held  freeholds 
of  forty  pounds,  three  months  before  election,  could  vote;  but  a 
grantee  of  a  mortgage  in  fee  forfeited,  in  possession  of  mortgaged 
premises  for  several  years  was  not  qualified  by  virtue  of  the  mortgage 
(N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  VI,  56).  Governor  Cornbury  in  1708  proposed  a 
novel  plan  of  representation  based  upon  tax  assessments.  The  gov 
ernor  had  found  difficulty  in  getting  the  assembly  to  pass  a  duty  on 
certain  goods  which  the  English  government  desired  taxed.  The 
country  districts,  wanting  cheap  goods,  refused  to  vote  for  the  measure, 
so  the  governor  urged  giving  to  New  York  City  as  many  representa 
tives  as  the  rest  of  the  province  possessed ;  and  this  would  not  be  so 
unequal,  he  said,  since  the  last  assembly  had  put  one-half  the  tax 
assessments  upon  New  York  City  (Col  Doc.,  V,  58).  It  is  needless 


Ufv 


( 


214     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

After  1701  two  more  questions  concerning  the  suffrage 
arose.  One  of  these  was  the  imposition  of  religious  restric 
tions  by  the  disfranchisement  of  Catholics  and  Jews,  and  the 
other  was  the  question  of  non-resident  and  plural  voting. 
Among  the  various  acts  which  had  been  passed  in  1701,  re 
pealed  by  the  subsequent  assembly,  and  restored  by  the  dis 
allowance  of  the  act  of  repeal,  was  the  act  of  October  18, 
1701,  already  quoted,  concerning  freeholds.  This  act  had  a 
severe  clause  positively  forbidding  any  papist,  popish  re 
cusant,  or  any  person  refusing  to  take  the  various  test  oaths, 
from  voting  for  representatives  or  for  any  other  officer  what 
ever.1  The  act,  however,  had  no  punitive  provision  respect 
ing  this  clause,  and  it  is  to  be  doubted  if  it  was  strictly 
enforced. 

Somewhat  the  same  doubt  surrounds  the  disfranchisement 
of  the  Jews  in  1737.  In  that  year  a  contest  arose  between 
two  assembly  candidates  in  New  York  City,  Philipse  and 
Van  Home,  over  the  result  of  the  election,  and  the  dispute 
was  carried  to  the  assembly  for  decision.  In  the  argument 
which  arose,  Mr.  Smith,  later  chief-  justice,  acted  as  counsel 
for  Van  Home,  and  urged  that  the  apparent  majority  of 
votes  for  Philipse  was  gained  through  the  votes  of  some 
Jews  and  some  non-resident  voters.  Smith  delivered  an  im 
passioned  speech,  in  which  he  described  the  death  of  Christ 
at  the  hands  of  the  Jews,  and  urged  that  the  curse  still  clung 
to  the  race  and  rendered  them  unfit  for  political  duties.  So 
vivid  was  his  description  that  the  staid  legislators  wept,  and 
the  populace  within  hearing  wanted  at  once  to  attack  the 
Jews.  The  impression  of  the  speech  was  so  strong  that  the 

to  say  that  the  English  government  did  not  adopt  the  suggestion  of 
Cornbury. 

"  .  .  .  .  from  henceforth  and  for  ever  hereafter,  no  Papist,  no 
Popish  Recusant,  or  Such  person  or  persons  as  shall  refuse  Upon  the 
tender  and  demand  of  the  Sheriff,  or  either  of  the  Candidates,  to  take 
the  Oaths  appointed  by  Law  to  be  taken  instead  of  the  Oaths  of  Alle 
giance  and  Supremacy,  and  to  Sign  the  Test  and  Association,  as 
Directed  by  Law  in  other  cases  shall  be  Suffered  to  give  his  or  their 
Vote  or  Votes  for  any  Representative  or  Representatives  to  Serve  in 
this  or  any  future  Generall  Assembly  within  this  Province,  or  for  any 
other  Officer  or  Officers  whatsoever."  (Col.  Laws,  I,  452-4.) 


The  Suffrage  in  New  York.  215 

assembly  passed  a  resolve  altogether  disfranchising  Jews  and 
refusing  to  count  their  votes  in  the  contested  election.1  Both 
the  act  of  1701  and  the  resolve  of  1737  were  unrepealed  at 
the  time  of  the  Revolution,  but  the  enforcement  of  either 
must  have  been  left  to  the  local  officers,  and  it  is  perhaps 
impossible  to  determine  to  what  extent  Jews  and  Catholics 
were  actually  disfranchised. 

The  other  phase  of  the  suffrage,  that  of  non-resident  and 
plural  voting,  remains  to  be  mentioned.  As  early  as  1700  it 
was  thought  proper  to  permit  a  freeholder  to  vote  in  several 
counties  if  he  held  land  in  each;  and  to  facilitate  this  plural 
voting,  it  seems  to  have  been  customary  to  hold  the  elections 
on  different  days  in  different  counties.2  In  1737,  too,  this 
right  of  non-residents  was  expressly  affirmed  by  the  legis 
lature  when  objection  was  made  to  the  counting  of  their 
votes  in  the  disputed  election  case  already  mentioned.  The 
decision  of  the  legislature  favoring  non-resident  voting, 
while  in  accord  with  the  English  practice,  did  not  win  popu 
lar  favor,  when  the  opinion  was  held  "  that  a  personal  resi 
dence  was  as  requisite  in  the  elector,  as  communion  of  inter 
ests  by  a  competent  freehold."  3  This  popular  opinion  may 
have  been  strengthened  by  the  participation  of  absentee  free 
holders  in  the  provincial  elections,  while  they  were  excluded 
from  the  local  town  meetings  and  elections,  where  only 
inhabiting  freeholders  could  vote.4  The  limitation  to  inhabi 
tants  in  the  one  case  would  tend  to  create  a  popular  sentiment 
in  favor  of  the  same  test  for  all  elections. 

1  The  Continuation  of  Smith's  Hist,  of  N.  Y.   (Coll.  of  N.  Y.  Hist. 
Soc.,  1826),  36-41;    Dunlap's  Hist,  of  N.  Y.  (N.  Y.,  1839),  I,  318-319. 

2  In  a  petition  against  the  actions  of  Lord  Bellomont,  March  n,  1700, 
it  is  said, — 

"  That  soon  after  his  LordP  issued  out  writts  for  chusing  a 
new  assembly,  and  the  Election  was  appointed  to  be  upon  the 
same  day  in  all  places  except  the  two  most  remote  counties 
whereby  the  best  freeholders  who  had  estates  in  several  coun 
ties,  were  deprived  of  giving  their  votes  at  several  elections," 
N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  IV,  621.  See  also  Ruttenber,  History  of 
Orange  County,  44-47 ;  Bishop,  History  of  Elections  in  Ameri 
can  Colonies,  69. 

3  Continuation  of  Smith's  Hist.,  37. 
*  See  post,  p.  219. 


216     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

The  non-resident  voting  was,  however,  continued,  and 
tax-lists  are  extant  for  the  city  and  county  of  New  York  for 
1768  and  1769  in  which  the  non-resident  voters  are  par 
ticularly  designated.1  In  the  latter  year  the  subject  came 
up  for  discussion  in  the  assembly  and  council  during  the 
consideration  of  a  new  election  law.  Mr.  William  Smith, 
Jr.,  in  the  council,  in  opposing  certain  parts  of  the  proposed 
bill,  said  that  so  far  as  it  casts  doubts  upon  the  suffrage  of 
non-residents  that  it  interfered  with  a  right  which  "  is  essen 
tial  to  Liberty,  clearly  established  by  sound  Exposition,  and 
invariably  followed." 2  The  bill  passed,  but  was  subse 
quently  disallowed  by  the  king,  probably  because  it  required 
the  representative  to  reside  in  the  district  which  he  repre 
sented.3  An  act  of  1775  shows  that  the  claim  to  vote  more 
than  once  sometimes  led  to  inconsistencies.  The  freeholders 
of  the  town  of  Schenectady  and  the  manors  of  Rensseler- 
wyck  and  Livingston  had  claimed  the  right  not  only  of 
electing  the  representative  from  those  places,  but  also  of 

1  See  "  A  Copy  of  the  Poll  List  of  the  Election  for  Representatives 
for  the   City  and   County  of  New-York;    which   Election  began   On 
Monday  the  7th  Day  of  March,  and  ended  on  Friday  the  nth  of  the 
same  Month,  in  the  Year  of  our  Lord  MDCCLXVIII.     Alphabetically 
Made."     And  similar  list  for  election  of  Jan.  23-27,  1769.     The  non 
resident  voters  are  marked  by  the  letters  N  R.     In  1769  there  were 
only  six  non-residents  out  of  1575  electors ;    in  1768  there  were  twenty- 
seven. 

2  Journal  of  Legislative   Council,  II,    1706,   May    19,   1769.   The  bill 
also  required  representatives  to  reside  in  the  district  which  they  repre 
sented.     To  this  Mr.   Smith  said  "  incapacitating  non-residents   from 
representing  their  Electors  is  an  alteration  of  the  Election  Act  of  1699 
(the  first  section  of  which  is  nearly  similar  to  the  Statute  of  the  8th  of 
H.  VI.  cap.  7)   is  repugnant  to  the  constant  usage  of  Parliament,  and 
the   general   practice   of   the   assembly,    for    near    seventy   years   past, 
abridges  the  Right  of  Electors  in  all  the  Counties,  and  may  be  very  pre 
judicial  to  the  City  and  County  of  New  York  in  particular,  where  it  is 
for  many  reasons  most  probable  the  greater  number  of  non-resident 
Members  would  reside ;    and  it  is  the  more  unreasonable  with  respect 
to  the  city  since  this  Capital  sends  only  four  out  of  twenty-seven  Mem 
bers,    tho'    it    bears    one    third    part    of    the    Burden    in    all    Publick 
Levies." 

3  Act  of  May  20,  1769;   disallowed,  June  6,  1770. 


The  Suffrage  in  New  York.  217 

having  a  part  in  the  election  of  a  representative  for  the  city 
and  county  of  Albany.  The  act  significantly  forbidding  the 
exercise  of  such  a  plural  suffrage  "  in  the  right  of  such  free 
hold  only,"  leads  to  the  intimation  that  those  who  held  free 
holds  in  both  parts  might  vote  in  each  place.1 

These  illustrations  are  sufficient  to  show  that  throughout    / 
the  colonial  period  the  freeholder  might,  if  he  chose,  vote  in^-- 
all  the  counties  in  which  he  possessed  land ; 2  while  to  make 
this  possible  the  elections  were  sometimes  held  upon  different 
days  in  different  counties,  or  the  polls  were  kept  open  for 
nearly  a  week,  during  which  a  freeholder  might  visit  several 
counties  and  cast  his  vote  in  each. 

Some  few  facts  concerning  the  number  of  electors  have 
been  found.  In  1735,  in  a  disputed  election  for  representa 
tive  from  New  York  City,  when  a  poll  had  been  demanded, 
and  the  inhabitants  had  been  brought  to  the  polls  in  coaches 
and  accompanied  with  drums  and  musicians,  it  was  found, 
at  ten  o'clock  at  night,  that  one  candidate  had  received  413 
and  the  other  399  votes ;  and  this  in  an  election  when  "  the 
zeal  of  the  friends  of  the  candidates  was  so  great  that  it  was 
supposed  every  voter  in  the  city  was  brought  out."  3  If  this 
supposition  were  true,  there  were  over  eight  hundred  voters 
in  a  population  of  about  io,ooo,4  or  eight  per  cent,  of  the 
population.  A  tax-list  for  1761  shows  1447  voters  in  the 
city  and  county  of  New  York ; 5  and  one  for  1 769  contains 
the  names  of  1515  electors.6  In  the  latter  case  it  is  inter 
esting  to  note  that  out  of  the  1515  electors  407  voted  in  the 

1  Act  of  April  3,  1775,  Ch.  69;  Laws  of  New  York,  I774~5,  206-7. 

2  Early  in  the  commonwealth  period  the  suffrage  was  limited  to  in 
habiting  freeholders.     The  act  of  March  27,  1778  (chap.  16)  provided 
that  no  one  could  vote  in  state  elections  unless  he  resided  in  the  district 
in  which  he  offered  to  vote.     Laws  of  the  State  of  New  York,  I,  28 
(Albany,  1886). 

3  Valentine's  Manual  of  the  Corporation,  1869,  p.  851. 

4  Ibid.,  1851,  352,  gives  the  population  of  the  city  for  1737  as  10,664. 

5 "  A  Copy  of  the  Poll  List  of  the  Election  for  Representatives  for  the 
city  and  County  of  New-York;  which  Election  began  on  Tuesday  the 
1 7th  Day  of  February,  and  ended  on  Thursday  the  igth  of  the  same 
Month,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  MDCCLXI.  Alphabetically  Made." 

6  Similar  list  for  election  of  January  23  to  January  27,  1769. 


218     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

right  of  both  freemanship  and  freehold,  506  were  freeholders 
only,  and  602  were  freemen  only.  It  would  thus  appear  that 
in  New  York  City  two-fifths  of  the  electors  of  representatives 
did  not  possess  land,  but  voted  in  the  right  of  their  free 
manship. 

According  to  Valentine's  Manual,1  the  population  in  the 
year  nearest  to  1761  given  therein  (1756)  was  13,040,  and 
in  the  nearest  year  to  1769  (1771)  it  was  21,863.  These 
figures  would  make  the  voting  class  in  the  city  at  from 
one-ninth  to  one- fourteenth  of  the  total  population;  and, 
taking  into  consideration  the  variation  of  dates,  the  electors 
may  have  comprised  about  eight  per  cent,  of  the  population, 
while  two-fifths  of  these  electors  did  not  possess  real  estate, 
but  voted  in  virtue  of  their  freemanship  alone. 

The  provincial  suffrage  during  this  period  was  first  based 
upon  the  English  custom,  but  in  a  short  time  the  qualification 
was  changed  to  a  freehold  of  the  value  of  forty  pounds,  or 
the  holding  of  freemanship  in  either  of  the  two  municipal 
corporations.  Catholics  were  by  statute  early  excluded  from 
the  suffrage,  and  later  Jews  were  disfranchised  by  resolution 
of  the  assembly.  Non-residents  could  vote  wherever  the 
freehold  lay,  and  might  thus  cast  several  votes  in  different 
counties.  Voting  throughout  all  the  period  was  according 
to  -the  English  viva-voce  plan. 

2.  The  Local  Suffrage. 

The  local  franchise  of  the  province  of  New  York  may  be 
divided  into  five  classes:  (i)  County  elections;  (2)  city 
elections;  (3)  town  elections  and  town  meetings ;  (4)  parish 
elections;  (5)  the  meetings  of  persons  interested  in  the  com 
mon  lands  of  the  town.2  A  few  words  may  be  said  about 
each  of  these  forms  of  suffrage. 

i.  County  Elections.  The  earlier  county  officers  were  ap 
pointed  by  the  governor  or  by  act  of  legislature,3  but  by  an 

1 1851,  353- 

2  There  were  no  militia  elections  in  New  York  during  this  period. 

3  Act  of  June  19,  1703,  Col.  Laws,  I,  532-8;    Act  of  October  13,  1713, 
Col.  Laivs,  I,  795-800. 


The  Suffrage  in  New  York.  219 

act  of  October  6,  I7O8,1  entitled  an  "Act  to  Relieve  this 
colony  from  Divers  Irregularitys  and  Extortions,"  the  coro 
ners  were  to  be  elected  by  the  freeholders  of  the  counties. 
In  the  elaborate  act  of  1703  which  established  the  repre 
sentative  county  officers,2  all  elections  for  the  supervisors, 
assessors,  and  collectors  were  to  be  made  by  the  freeholders 
and  inhabitants  of  the  respective  towns;  and  while  subse 
quent  acts  provided  for  the  election  of  these  officers  in  dis 
tricts  or  precincts  as  well  as  in  towns,  yet  the  phrase  "  free 
holders  and  inhabitants"  is  almost  invariably  used.3  The 
use  of  a  somewhat  similar  phrase  has  already  been  noted  in 
the  Duke's  Laws,  and  it  is  believed  that  the  class  here  de 
scribed  was  inhabiting  freeholders,  as  under  the  earlier  code. 
The  proof  that  the  word  inhabitant  was  meant  as  an  addi 
tional  qualification  for  the  freeholder  rather  than  as  an  addi 
tional  class  of  voters  is  gained  from  the  laws  themselves  and 
from  the  custom  of  the  towns.  In  several  instances  the 
phrase  "  freeholders  inhabiting  within  the  said  county"  or 
district  is  used,  thus  giving  clear  evidence  of  the  intention 
of  the  framers  of  the  laws ;  4  while  an  inspection  of  the  town 
books  of  Hempstead  shows  that  none  but  freeholders  were 
permitted  to  vote  in  that  town.5 

1  Col  Laws,  I,  622. 

'Act  of  June  19,  1703,  chap.  133,  Col.  Laws,  I,  539-542;  the  act  of 
May  13,  1691  (Col.  Laws,  I,  237),  was  so  vaguely  worded  that  it  led  to 
many  disputes. 

3  For  the  early  laws  on  this  subject  see  acts  of  November  12,  1709  (Ch. 
212);  November  25,  1710  (Ch.  225);  December  10,  1712  (Ch.  257); 
October  23,  1713  (Ch.  270)  ;  October  23,  1713  (Ch.  271)  ;  July  21,  1715 
(Ch.  297)  ;  July  3,  1718  (Ch.  354)  ;  June  24,  1719  (Ch.  397)  ;  June  24, 
1719  (Ch.  380)  ;  etc. 

*Acts  of  June  19,  1703  (Ch.  133);  July  21,  1715  (Ch.  297  and  Ch. 
300)  ;  May  27,  1717  (Ch.  332).  See  also  Bishop,  History  of  Elections 
in  American  Colonies,  222-3. 

6  The  legal  phrase  "  freeholders  and  inhabitants"  is  often  used  by  the 
town  clerks ;  sometimes  the  term  is  simply  "  inhabitants ;"  but  in  Hemp- 
stead  the  words  are  so  used  that  we  can  gather  from  them  the  idea  that 
only  freeholders  could  vote.  Thus  the  records  from  1685  to  1704  speak 
of  matters  being  concluded  by  "  mager"  vote  of  the  town;  after  1704 
the  words  "  freeholders  and  inhabitants"  are  infrequently  used,  but  the 
general  term  is  merely  "freeholders;"  while  after  about  1750  the  legal 


22O     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

The  difficulty  in  picturing  the  voting  class  arises  from  the 
fact  that  the  word  inhabitant  was  never  defined  in  the  laws, 
and  that  the  phrase  was  generally  adopted  by  all  officers 
and  town  clerks,  so  that  it  is  almost  impossible  to  find  any 
thing  else  than  the  single  legal  phrase.  The  same  clause 
was  used  throughout  the  colonial  period,1  and  even  appears 
frequently  in  the  returns  for  the  election  of  deputies  to  the 
provincial  convention  of  April,  I775,2  although  here,  as  in 
the  town  records  of  the  colonial  period,  the  word  inhabitant 
is  sometimes  used.  In  elections  for  county  officers,  with  the 
possible  exception  of  those  for  coroner,3  the  franchise  was 
restricted  to  inhabiting  freeholders.  No  limitation  of  the 
necessary  freehold,  either  as  to  size  or  value,  having  been 
found,  it  may  be  taken  that  any  freeholder,  of  large  or  small 
estate,  could  vote  in  the  county  elections  if  he  were  an  inhabi 
tant  of  the  county. 

2.  City  Elections.  In  these  elections  the  principal  pecu 
liarity  lay  in  the  freemanship.  The  old  burgherecht  of  the 
Dutch  New  Amsterdam  had  continued  under  the  English 
rule,  and  was  well  expressed  in  an  ordinance  of  the  mayor 
and  aldermen  in  1675—6: 

"  Ordered  that  noe  person  or  Merchant  whatsoever  shall  sell,  or  cause 
to  bee  sold,  or  put  to  sale  any  Goods,  wares  and  Merchandizes  by  Re- 
tale  upon  paine  to  forfeit  all  such  goods,  wares  and  merchandizes  unless 


phrase  is  used  almost  exclusively.  These  variations  were  without  doubt 
due  to  the  idiosyncrasies  of  the  clerks,  but  they  show  us  that  it  made 
no  difference  whether  the  attendants  at  the  town  meetings  and  elections 
were  called  inhabitants  or  freeholders,  or  freeholders  and  inhabitants; 
and  since  this  is  true  we  are  logically  forced  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
narrower  term  must  be  accepted.  Records  of  Hempstead,  II-IV  passim. 

1  Acts  of  March  24,  1772,  Col.  Laws,  V,  395,  403;   act  of  February  8, 
1774  (Ch.  VIII)  ;    Laws  of  1774-5,  p.  12;    act  of  March  19,  1774  (Ch. 
XLII),  Laws  of  1774-5,  p.  70;    April  3,  1775  (Ch.  LXXVI),  Laws  of 
1774-5,  P.  212. 

2  Journal  of  Provincial   Convention,   April  20,    1775,   I,   2-9.     Elec 
tions  were  said  to  be  by  "  freeholders  and  inhabitants,"  by  "  freemen, 
freeholders  and  inhabitants"   (N.  Y.  City);    "by  inhabitants,"  and  by 
"  freeholders." 

3  The  act  of  October  6,  1708,  named  only  freeholders  as  electors  of 
coroners. 


The  Suffrage  in  New  York.  221 

such  person  or  persons  are  Free-men  or  made  Free  or  Burghers  of  this 
Citty,  and  settled  housekeepers  for  the  space  of  one  year  or  given  secu 
rity  for  the  same  Unless  by  Special  License  from  the  Mayor  and  Alder 
men  with  the  approbacon  of  the  Governor.  And  if  any  Person  or  Per 
sons  soe  made  free  shall  depart  from  this  Citty  by  the  space  of  six 
months  Unless  such  Person  or  persons  so  departing  shall  during  that 
time  keepe  fire  and  Candle  Light  and  pay  Scott  and  Lott  shall  Loose  his 
and  their  freedome ;  and  that  all  and  every  Merchant  hereafter  to  be 
made  free  shall  pay  for  the  same,  Six  Bevers ;  And  all  Handecraft 
trades  [men]  and  others  to  pay  two  Bevers  for  their  being  made  free 
men ;  (Unless  by  Speciall  order  of  Court)."1 

By  the  provisional  charter  granted  in  1683  the  beaver 
•  skins  were  commuted  into  pounds  and  shillings,  every  mer 
chant  or  shopkeeper  paying  three  pounds  twelve  shillings 
j  for  his  freedom,  and  every  craftsman  one  pound  four  shill 
ings.2  Dongan's  charter  gave  to  the  mayor,  recorder,  and 
aldermen  the  power  to  admit  freemen,  but  to  make  no  greater 
charge  than,  .five-  pounds  3  for  the  f reemanship.  Four  days 
after  the  date  of  the  charter  the  city  authorities  raised  the 
fee  to  the  limit  permitted  in  the  charter,4  but  in  1691  it  was 
changed  back  to  the  sums  required  in  i683-5  In  1694-5  6  it 
was  further  provided  that  every  apprentice  should  be  regis 
tered  with  the  city  authorities,  and  upon  completing  a  term 
of  service  of  not  lessjthan  four  years  should  be  made  free 
of  the  city  by  his  master,  "  if  he  have  well  and  truely  served 
him."  Montgomery's  charter  of  I73O7  made  no  change  in 
the  freeman  qualifications;  and  the  fees  of  1683,  with  the 
extension  to  apprentices  in  1695,  continued  the  method  of 
gaining  the  freemanship  until  the  Revolution  put  a  stop  to 
the  municipal  activities.  Some  laws  were  passed  during  this 
period  respecting  the  suffrage  in  the  city.  An  act  of  1702, 
called  forth  by  the  "  great  Strifes  Debates  &  Suites"  which 
had  previously  happened,  required  voting  freeholders  not 
only  to  hold  land  in  the  city,  but  also  to  reside  therein,  and 

1  N.  Y.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll,  1885,  40-41. 

Ubid.,  45,  47- 

8  Ibid.,  48 ;   N.  Y.  Col  Laws,  181-195. 

*Ibid.f  48.  'Ibid.,  so. 

6  Ibid.,  52 ;   January  16,  1694-5. 

7  N.  Y.  Col.  Laws.  II,  575-639. 


222     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

gave  freemen  the  right  to  vote  only  in  the  ward  in  which 
they  resided,  provided  they  had  taken  their  residence  in  the 
ward  three  months  before  the  election.1  By  the  Montgomery 
charter  electors  were  spoken  of  as  "  ^freeholders  or  ffreemen 
Inhabitants  of  the  said  city,"  which  was  the  requirement  of 
the  act  of  1 702 ;  while  vestrymen  were  subsequently  elected 
by  the  "wards."2  An  act  of  I77I3  identified  the  word 
freeholder  as  used  in  the  charter  with  its  use  for  the  pro 
vincial  suffrage,  i.e.,  forty  pounds  value  of  freehold;  and 
required  freemen  to  have  held  their  freedom  for  three  months 
and  have  resided  in  the  ward  one  month.  This  act  also 
required  electors  to  declare  whether  they  voted  as  freehold 
ers  or  freemen,  a  rule  which  had  already  been  in  use.4 

The  Albany  charter  of  1686,  which  remained  the  consti 
tution  of  the  city  until  the  Revolution,  prescribed  that  elective 
officers  should  be  chosen  "  by  the  majority  of  voices  of  the 
inhabitants  of  each  ward."  The  mayor,  recorder,  and  alder 
men  could  admit  freemen,  but  none  could  be  admitted  except 
natural  born  or  naturalized  subjects  of  the  King  of  England ; 
and  they  could  not  be  compelled  to  pay  more  than  three 
pounds  twelve  shillings  for  merchant  right  or  thirty-six 
shillings  for  craftsman  rights  in  the  city.5  These  sums  were 
evidently  retained  in  practice  for  strangers  coming  to  the 
city,  but  for  persons  born  in  Albany  the  fee,  in  1763,  was 
reduced  to  two  shillings,6  and  later  was  made  still  lower.' 
The  names  of  those  admitted,  except  in  a  few  instances,  are 
not  given  in  the  records,8  but  occasional  mention  is  made  of 
fees  accruing  from  the  admission  of  freemen.9 

1 N.   Y.   Col.  Laws,  I,  490;    disallowed  by  the  queen,  December  31, 
1702. 

2  Acts  of  November  29,  1745,  Col.  Laws,  III,  506;    and  of  January  27,. 
1770,  Col.  Laws,  V,  85. 

3  Col.  Laws,  V,  228;    continued  by  act  of  March  9,  1774. 

4  See  poll  lists  of  1768-69. 

5  N.  Y.  Col.  Laws,  I,  209,  210;    Munsell's  Annals  of  Albany,  II,  79-80. 
9  Munsell,  Hist.  Coll.  of  Albany  I,  144. 

1  Ibid.,  172,  199.    In  1769  it  was  reduced  to  one  shilling  six  pence. 
8  Albany  City  Records  are  published  in  Vols.  II-X  of  Munsell's  An 
nals  of  Albany,  and  Vol.  I  of  the  Hist.  Coll.  of  Albany. 
8  Hist.  Coll.  of  Albany,  I,  passim. 


The  Suffrage  in  New  York.  223 

The  city  elections  are  usually  said  to  be  by  the  "  inhabi 
tants,"  1  but  it  is  believed  that  this  meant  inhabiting  free 
holders  and  freemen,  and  in  one  case  the  electors  are  dis 
tinctly  so  described.2  A  contested  case  in  1773  led  to  the 
adoption  of  rules  regulating  the  suffrage,  prescribing  (i) 
that  no  alien  could  vote,  no  matter  what  his  term  of  resi 
dence;  (2)  British  subjects  having  resided  six  weeks  in  the 
city  had  the  right  to  vote  in  the  wards  they  inhabited ;  ( 3 ) 
no  bond  servant  could  vote  during  the  time  of  his  service; 
(4)  the  votes  of  persons  who  had  been  bribed  were  null  and 
void.3 

3.  Town  Elections.  The  earliest  act  upon  this  subject  is 
that  of  May  6,  1691,*  which  authorized  the  holding  of  town 
meetings  and  gave  to  the  freeholders  at  these  meetings  the 
right  to  make  prudential  by-laws  and  to  elect  certain  local 
officers.  Other  early  acts  also  used  the  word  freeholders 
alone5  in  defining  the  suffrage.  In  an  act  of  I7O2,6  later 
disallowed  by  the  queen,  the  voters  of  Kingston  ("  Kings 
Town")  are  spoken  of  as  "  freeholders  and  freemen"  of  the 
town,  but  no  other  application  of  the  word  freemen  to  town 
voters  has  been  noticed.  After  1703  the  term  "  freeholder 
and  inhabitant"  is  generally  used  in  the  laws  and  town  rec 
ords,  and  is  believed  to  have  the  meaning  ascribed  to  it  for 
county  elections.7 

1Munsell,  Annals  of  Albany,  VI,  266.  *  Ibid.,  285. 

3  Munsell,  Hist.  Coll.  of  Albany,  I,  254. 

"  An  Act  for  the  Enableing  each  Respective  Towne  within  this  Prov 
ince  to  Regulate  their  Fences  and  Highwayes  and  make  Prudentiall 
Orders  for  their  Peace  and  Orderly  Improvements,"  Col.  Laws,  I,  225. 

5  Act  of  May  13,  1691,  Col.  Laws,  I,  237;  May  16,  1699,  Col.  Laws,  I, 
427.  The  act  of  October  18,  1701,  makes  no  mention  of  an  electoral  class, 
merely  providing  for  elections  by  the  "  towns." 

8  Act  of  May  i,  1702,  Col.  Laws,  I,  488. 

7  See  Col.  Laws,  I,  539,  1033 ;  II,  130;  III,  54,  320,  415,  947,  959,  1017; 
IV,  944,  977 ;  V,  405.  It  is  interesting  to  notice  that  when  the  legislators 
desired  to  express  the  class  which  we  to-day  would  call  inhabitants,  they 
used  other  phrases  in  addition  to  the  "freeholder  and  inhabitant"  clause. 
Thus  taxes  were  to  be  levied  upon  "  all  &  every  ye  ffreeholders,  In 
habitants  Residenters  and  Sojourners  of  and  in  this  Province"  (Act  of 
May  1 6,  1699,  Col.  Laws,  I,  396-401).  Other  tax  laws  varied  the  word 
ing  somewhat,  but  almost  invariably  added  another  class  to  the  free- 


224     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

4.  Parish  Elections.     Under  the  Duke's  Laws,  ministers 
had  been  elected  by  the  towns,  but  by  the  act  of  September 
22,  1693^  ten  "  vistry"  men  and  two  church  wardens  were 
to  be  elected  in  each  parish  in  the  counties  of  Richmond, 
Westchester,  and  Queens  and  in  the  city. of  New  York  by 
the  freeholders  of  the  city  or  county,  and  the  minister  was  to 
be  selected  by  the  vestrymen.     There  are  but  few  later  acts 
concerning  these  elections,  one  of  which  used  the  phrase 
freeholders  and  inhabitants,2  another  "  freeholders"  alone,3 
and  still  another  only  "  inhabitants."  4    It  is  most  likely  that 
these  terms  all  refer  to  the  class  of  local  voters  already  men 
tioned.     In  New  York  City  a  later  act  provided  for  the 
election  of  vestrymen  by  "  each  ward,"  5  but  afterwards  the 
word  freeholder  alone  is  used,6  and  again  the  qualifications 
of  voters  for  other  city  elections  are  established  for  the  city 
parish  elections.7     The  apparent  intention  was  to  place  the 
parish  elections  upon  the  same  suffrage  basis  as  the  political 
elections  of  the  towns  and  cities. 

5.  Suffrage  concerning  Land  Matters.    Still  another  divi 
sion  of  the  population  for  voting  purposes  existed.     This 
arose  out  of  the  interest  of  certain  persons  in  the  unoccupied 
and  common  lands  of  the  towns,  which,  having  been  granted 
to  certain  proprietors  at  the  founding  of  the  towns,  con 
tinued  as  a  distinct  right  of  their  descendants  and  successors. 
The  laws  8  gave  to  those  thus  concerned  the  right  to  make 
rules  relating  to  the  common  lands  and  in  certain  cases  to 
divide  the  lands  among  themselves.     The  phrases  used  in 
the  laws  describing  this  class  of  persons  are  "  proprietors," 


holders  and  inhabitants.     See  Chaps.  8,  15,  20,  22,  29,  39,  43,  50,  51,  53, 
56,  63,  71,  82,  etc.,  of  colonial  laws. 
1  Col.  Laws,  I,  328. 

*  Laws,  III,  429,  referring  only  to  Richmond  County. 

8  Col.  Lazvs,  I,  440-1.  *  Laws,  V,  297. 

8  Act  of  November  29,  1745,  Col.  Laws,  III,  506. 

*  Act  of  January  27,  1770,  Col.  Laws,  V,  86. 

7  Act  of  February  16,  1771,  Col.  Laws,  V,  228;  revived  and  continued 
until  1780  by  act  of  March  9,  1774,  Laws  of  N.  Y.  1774-5,  45- 

"Acts  of  October  30,  1708,  Laws,  I,  633;  of  July  21,  1715,  Laws,  I. 
882;  of  October  16,  1718,  Laws,  I,  1006;  of  February  19,  1756,  Laws, 
IV,  41-3;  and  of  January  27,  1770,  Laws,  V,  115. 


The  Suffrage  in  New  York.  225 

"  owners,"  "  joint  tenants,"  "  tenants  in  common,"  etc.,  all 
of  which  sufficiently  mark  off  the  owners  of  such  lands  from 
those  holding  no  share  therein. 

The  body  of  tenants  in  common  differed  from  the  "  free 
holders  and  inhabitants"  of  the  ordinary  town  meeting  by 
excluding  some  voters  and  including  others  not  ordinarily 
permitted  to  vote  in  the  town  meeting.  Thus  there  can  be 
no  doubt  that  there  were  freeholders  in  the  towns  who  did 
not  enjoy  the  rights  in  the  commons,1  and,  on  the  other 
hand,  non-resident  freeholders  may  have  been  allowed  to 
vote  on  matters  which  so  directly  concerned  their  own  prop 
erty  interests.2  The  matters  were  to  be  determined  by  the 
owners  resident  in  the  colony,  however,3  thus  ignoring  any 
proprietors,  if  there  were  such,  resident  in  Europe.  An 
inspection  of  the  records  of  Hempstead  shows  that  frequent 
meetings  of  the  "  freeholders  and  tennants  in  common  of 
the  plain  Land  in  the  town  abovesaid"  were  held,  and  by 
laws  and  regulations  concerning  the  care  and  division  of  the 
town  land  were  adopted.4  In  such  elections  the  proportions 
of  the  early  allotment  of  land  were  sometimes  maintained, 
as  in  Southampton,  where  the  voting  is  said  to  be  by 
"  fifties,"  and  even  portions  of  a  "  fifty"  might  be  voted.5 
A  later  act  may  have  limited  the  voting  in  such  elections  to 
those  who  held  full  shares  according  to  the  early  division.6 

While  an  effort  has  been  made  here  to  enumerate  the 
various  forms  of  local  suffrage,  it  will  be  noticed  that  the 
elections  mentioned  were  almost  all  made  up  of  freeholders 

1  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  XIV,  751.    In  the  Southampton  Records  occurs  the 
phrase  "  those  interested  in  the  town  lands,"  which  may  imply  that  there 
were  some  not  so  interested,  Records,  II,  252. 

2  It  must  be  admitted  that  no  proof  has  been  found  for  the  latter  state 
ment  except  the  negative  evidence  coming  from  the  general  omission  of 
the  word  "  inhabitants"  in  connection   with   such   meetings.     See  the 
various  references  to  the  laws  and  to  town  action. 

3  Act  of  October  30,  1708,  gave  power  to  joint  tenants  here  residing 
by  major  vote  to  divide  their  lands. 

4  Records  of  Hempstead,  IV,  86,  216,  219,  248,  351,  375,  446-448,  etc. 

G  Southampton  Town  Records,  II,  143,  April  2,  1700.  The  term  evi 
dently  referred  to  fifty  acres. 

8  Act  of  October  16,  1718,  Col.  Laws,  I,  1006. 

15 


226     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

and  inhabitants,  or,  as  we  have  interpreted  the  phrase,  of 
inhabiting  freeholders.  The  variations  from  this  rule  are  to 
be  found  in  the  city  elections  of  New  York  City  and  Albany, 
and  in  the  elections  and  meetings  concerning  common  land. 
It  is  believed  that  the  double  qualification  of  freeholdership 
and  inhabitancy  was  required  in  county,  town,  and  parish 
elections  from  1703  until  the  revolutionary  period. 


CHAPTER    VIII. 
THE  SUFFRAGE  IN  NEW  JERSEY. 

New  Jersey's  history  as  a  political  organization  begins 
with  Stuyvesant's  grant  of  a  charter  to  the  settlement  of 
Bergen,  on  September  5,  i66i.1  Before  that  date,  although 
some  forty  years  and  more  had  passed  since  the  first  settle 
ment,  there  was  no  incorporation  of  the  inhabitants  either 
along  the  Hudson  or  on  the  Delaware.  Indeed,  the  popula 
tion  was  so  small  in  numbers  and  so  scattered  geographi 
cally  that  it  would  be  the  height  of  archaeological  nicety  to 
attribute  any  political  activity  to  the  settlers:  Only  one  hun 
dred  and  thirty-nine  persons  took  the  oath  of  allegiance  to 
the  new  proprietors  in  1665,  after  the  coming  of  Governor 
Carteret  to  the  colony,2  and  under  the  Dutch  the  number  of 
heads  of  families  must  have  been  still  smaller.  And  when 
the  Dutch  governor  granted  his  charter  in  1661,  he  gave  to 
the  residents  of  the  Bergen  territory  a  government  similar 
to  that  which  he  had  imposed  upon  other  parts  of  the  Dutch 
dominion;  it  consisted  simply  of  a  local  court,  composed  of 
four  officers,  and  possessing  certain  limited  judicial,  legis 
lative,  and  administrative  powers.  In  the  selection  of  this 
court  the  people  appear  to  have  had  no  choice,  for  the  yearly 
appointments  were  made  by  the  New  Amsterdam  authori 
ties  from  a  double  number  of  candidates  proposed  by  the 
existing  officers.3  As  this  continued  to  be  the  method  of 
government  until  the  occupation  of  the  country  by  the  Eng 
lish,  it  is  scarcely  of  moment  to  apply  the  word  suffrage  to 
conditions  which  were  fixed  first  by  a  local  close  corporation, 
and  in  the  last  resort  by  the  general  officers  at  New  Amster 
dam.  It  is  not  until  the  coming  of  the  English  that  any 
element  of  popular  government  appears. 

By  a  hostife  act  against  a  friendly  nation,  Charles  II.  of 

1  Laws  and  Ordinances  of  New  Netherlands,  403. 
*  New  Jersey  Colonial  Archives,  I,  48-51. 
8  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  XIII,  231. 

227 


228     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

England  on  March  12,  1663-64,  made  his  well-known  grant 
to  his  brother,  James,  Duke  of  York,  including  within  the 
lands  so  bestowed  not  only  Maine  and  Long  Island,  but  also 
that  from  the  west  side  of  the  Connecticut  River  to  the  east 
side  of  the  Delaware,1  and  giving  James  full  and  absolute 
power  to  govern  the  inhabitants  of  the  ceded  territory. 
Before  he  had  acquired  possession  the  Duke  had  parted  with 
a  large  share  of  his  grant  to  two  noblemen,  Lord  Berkeley 
and  Sir  George  Carteret ;  and  on  June  24  granted  them  the 
land  between  the  Hudson  and  Delaware  rivers  "in  as  full 
and  ample  manner  as  the  same  is  granted  unto  the  said  Duke 
of  York."2  And  although  Colonel  Nicholls,  the  Duke's 
governor  at  New  York,  strongly  opposed  the  grant,3  it  re 
mained  valid,  and  soon  was  acted  upon  by  the  new  pro 
prietors. 

In  the  winter  of  1664-5  Berkeley  and  Carteret  proceeded 
to  advertise  their  colony,  and  announced  certain  "  Conces 
sions  and  Agreements  of  the  Lords  Proprietors  of  the  Prov 
ince  of  New  Caesarea,  or  New  Jersey,  to  and  with  all  & 
every  the  Adventurers  and  all  such  as  shall  settle  or  plant 
there."  4  Considering  the  close  relations  of  the  proprietors  to 
the  king  and  the  Duke  of  York,  these  concessions  are  re 
markably  favorable  to  the  intending  settlers.  The  liberty  of 
conscience  was  guaranteed,  the  political  privilege  of  a  gen 
eral  legislative  assembly  and  of  chartered  towns  and  cities 
was  promised,  and  the  great  inducement  of  cheap,  almost 
free,  land  was  held  forth. 

Before  mentioning  the  suffrage  conditions  as  laid  down 
in  the  concessions,  it  will  be  proper  to  call  attention  to  the 
manner  of  obtaining  land  and  the  conditions  imposed  upon 
the  settlers  therein.  During  the  whole  colonial  period  free- 
holding  was  the  most  marked  qualification  for  the  suffrage 
in  New  Jersey ;  and  the  question,  therefore,  naturally  arises, 
upon  what  conditions  could  land  be  obtained?  The  pro- 

1  Learning  and  Spicer,  Grants,  Concessions,  and  Original  Constitutions 
of  the  Province  of  New  Jersey,  3 ;  Poore,  Charters  and  Constitutions, 
I,  783. 

-Ibid.,  8;    Smith,  History  of  New  Jersey,  60-61. 

zNew  Jersey  Col.  Archives,  I,  46-48. 

4  Learning  and  Spicer,  12-26. 


The  Suffrage  in  New  Jersey.  229 

prietary  concessions  gave  to  every  free  man  going  out  before 
January  i,  1665,  one  hundred  and  fifty  acres  for  himself 
and  the  same  amount  for  every  able-bodied  servant,  well 
armed  and  provisioned,  which  he  should  bring  with  him ;  and 
seventy-five  acres  for  every  weaker  servant,  male  or  female, 
over  fourteen  years  of  age.  And  upon  attaining  his  freedom 
each  Christian  servant  was  to  receive  seventy-five  acres.  The 
only  conditions  required  of  the  settler  were  that  he  should 
be  fully  armed,  provisioned  for  six  months,  and  that  after 
March  25,  1670,  he  should  pay  annually  a  quit-rent  of  one- 
half  penny  for  each  acre  which  he  had  received.  Settlers 
who  should  come  to  the  colony  after  1666  would  receive 
smaller  amounts  of  land,  diminishing  year  by  year,  until  by 
1668  the  amount  for  an  able-bodied  settler  was  to  be  only 
sixty  acres. 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  the  settler  needed  little  more 
capital  than  sufficient  to  purchase  his  own  equipment  and 
arms;  the  proprietors  demanded  no  money  payment  for 
lands,  but  at  the  end  of  five  years — 1670 — the  quit-rents 
should  become  due.  It  was  further  provided  that  all  subjects 
of  the  King  of  England  should  be  at  liberty  to  plant  and 
become  freemen  of  the  province.  Thus  land  was  the  cheapest 
commodity  in  the  country ;  and  a  community  whose  members 
possessed  thousands  of  acres  of  land  might  still  be  compelled 
to  take  up  a  voluntary  contribution  of  nails  in  order  to  roof 
over  the  meeting-house.1  Land  was  thus  open  to  any  free 
English  subject  who  could  get  out  to  the  new  country ;  and 
its  value  must  be  expressed,  not  in  terms  of  purchase  money 
paid  to  the  proprietors,  for  there  was  none  such,  but  in 
terms  of  the  cost  of  transportation  of  men,  implements,  and 
cattle  thither.  Indeed,  land  in  America  sometimes  had  a 
negative  value,  and  it  was  necessary  to  pay  persons  to  go 
out  to  it ;  the  owners  hoping  to  be  reimbursed  by  the  growth 
of  the  country  and  advancement  of  trade.2  Once  in  America, 
if  the  settler  possessed  a  good  character  and  was  not  politi 
cally  or  religiously  obnoxious,  it  was  an  easy  matter  to  get 
land.  Since  agriculture  was  almost  the  sole  occupation,  he 

1  In  Newark,  April  17,  1669;   Town  Records,  18. 

2  See  the  inducements  offered  by  the  Dutch  West  India  Company  to 
settlers;   N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  I,  371.     (March  4,  1650.) 


230     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

who  did  not  possess  land  was  usually  a  vagrant  and  socially 
dangerous.  Hence,  to  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  cen 
tury  settler  and  statesman  the  possession  of  land  meant  little 
more  than  that  the  individual  had  a  permanent  and  definite 
employment. 

With  this  understanding  of  the  ease  of  acquiring  land  and 
the  universality  of  land-holding,  we  are  ready  to  look  at  the 
first  definite  suffrage  qualifications  laid  down  in  New  Jersey. 
The  concessions  provided  for  an  annual  session  of  an  elective 
assembly  chosen  by  the  freeholders  of  the  province : 

"  The  inhabitants  being  freemen,  or  chief  agents  to  others  of  the 
Province  aforesaid ;  do  as  soon  as  this  our  commission  shall  arrive,  by 
virtue  of  a  writ  in  our  names  by  the  Governor  to  be  for  the  present 
(until  our  seal  comes)  sealed  and  signed,  make  choice  of  twelve  depu 
ties  or  representatives  from  amongst  themselves ;  who  being  chosen  are 
to  join  with  the  said  Governor  and  Council  for  the  making  of  such  laws, 
ordinances  and  constitution  as  shall  be  necessary  for  the  present  govern 
ment  and  welfare  of  the  said  Province.  But  so  soon  as  parishes,  divi 
sions,  tribes  and  other  distinctions  are  made,  that  then  the  inhabitants 
or  freeholders  of  the  several  respective  parishes,  tribes,  divisions  and 
distinctions  aforesaid,  do  by  our  writts,  under  our  seals  (which  we 
ingage,  shall  be  in  due  time  issued)  annually  meet  on  the  first  day  of 
January,  and  choose  freeholders  for  each  respective  division,  tribe  or 
parish  to  be  the  deputies  or  representatives  of  the  same:  which  body 
of  representatives  or  the  major  part  of  them,  shall,  with  the  Governor 
&  Council  aforesaid,  be  the  General  Assembly  of  the  said  Province,  the 
Governor  or  his  deputy  being  present.  .  .  ." 

This  regulation,  made  before  the  first  body  of  emigrants  to 
the  new  province  had  set  out,  provided  for  two  kinds  of 
assemblies:  a  preliminary  representative  body,  chosen  by 
the  whole  community  of  planters  and  settlers  and  their 
agents ;  and  a  permanent  representative  organization,  elected 
by  the  freeholders  and  based  upon  geographical  districts. 
The  latter  assembly,  thus  composed  of  governor,  council, 
and  house  of  deputies,  was  given  large  powers.  It  could 
appoint  its  own  meetings  and  adjournment,  constitute  courts, 
erect  manors,  hundreds,  boroughs,  towns  and  cities ;  it  could 
levy  taxes,  organize  and  train  the  militia,  and  naturalize 
foreigners;  it  should  determine  the  method  of  land  allot- 


The  Suffrage  in  New  Jersey.  231 

ment,  and  make  provision  for  the  support  of  government. 
The  laws  of  the  assembly  must  be  consonant  to  reason  and 
conform  as  nearly  as  convenient  to  the  laws  of  England; 
and  they  must  not  be  opposed  to  the  interest  of  the  Lords 
Proprietors  nor  repugnant  to  the  Concessions;  and  lastly, 
the  laws  should  remain  in  force  only  one  year  unless  con 
firmed  by  the  proprietors. 

The  Concessions  had  stated  that  the  electors  of  the  depu 
ties  in  this  assembly  should  be  freeholders,  but  no  definition 
or  qualification  of  the  word  freeholder  was  given.  Yet  free 
holder  is  a  relative  rather  than  a  definite  term,  and  particu 
larly  was  the  meaning  of  the  word  undetermined  in  1665. 
It  implied,  however,  certain  legal  proof  of  the  right  of  pos 
session,  and  often  required  the  performance  of  express 
duties  to  the  lord.  In  New  Jersey  these  two  qualifications 
of  a  freehold  were  translated  into  the  terms  "  proprietary 
title"  and  "  proprietary  quit-rents;"  and  for  over  a  hundred 
years  they  furnish  the  unchanging  background  for  the  his 
tory  of  the  province.  We  must  now  notice  how  the  question 
originated. 

Before  the  news  reached  America  that  the  Duke  of  York 
had  ceded  part  of  his  territory  to  Berkeley  and  Carteret, 
Colonel  Nicholls,  whose  orders  had  been  to  subdue  and  gov 
ern  all  the  land  described  in  the  King's  patent  to  the  Duke, 
had  made  land  grants  in  what  is  now  New  Jersey.  The  first 
of  these  grants  was  made  by  Nicholls  to  several  Long  Island 
inhabitants  who  wished  to  settle  on  the  site  of  the  later  town 
of  Elizabeth;  and  this  grant  was  followed  in  the  spring  of 
1665  by  a  patent  for  lands  along  the  coast  southward  and 
westward  of  Staten  Island,  called  the  "  Monmouth  Pat 
ent."  1  When  Governor  Carteret  arrived,  in  the  summer  of 
1665,  to  take  charge  of  the  province  for  the  proprietors,  he 

1  For  the  Elizabeth-town  settlement  and  claims  see  W.  A.  Whitehead, 
A  Review  of  some  of  the  Circumstances  Connected  with  the  Settlement 
of  Elisabeth,  N.  J '.,  read  before  the  N.  J.  Historical  Society,  May  20, 
1869 ;  also  Whitehead,  East  Jersey  under  the  Proprietary  Governments, 
42-45 ;  Smith,  History  of  New  Jersey,  61-68. 

For  the  Monmouth  patent  see  Learning  and  Spicer,  661-663;  N.  /. 
Archives,  I,  43-46;  Whitehead,  East  Jersey,  45-47,  61 ;  Smith,  New 
Jersey,  62. 


232     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

found  that  settlements  had  been  made  under  these  patents; 
but  for  the  time  being  the  previous  settlers  appear  to  have 
recognized  his  authority,  and  no  question  of  jurisdiction 
arose  for  several  years. 

The  first  three  years  of  the  provincial  government  were 
consumed  by  the  governor  and  council  in  allotting  land,  sur 
veying  tracts,  and  organizing  local  governments;  and  not 
until  April,  1668,  did  the  governor  issue  a  proclamation  for 
the  freeholders  to  elect  their  delegates  to  an  assembly.1  The 
elections  were  held  accordingly,  and  ten  deputies  were 
selected  from  six  towns ; 2  and  in  May  and  November  the 
governor,  council,  and  deputies  held  sessions  of  the  "  Assem 
bly"  at  Elizabeth-Town,  at  which  a  number  of  acts  were 
passed.  But  no  sooner  was  the  representative  system  inau 
gurated  than  the  question  of  the  suffrage  arose. 

The  governor  in  his  writ  had  directed  that  all  freeholders 
should  take  part  in  the  elections,  but  now  the  disputed  land- 
titles  led  to  troubles  at  the  elections.  Many  of  the  settlers 
on  the  Monmouth  and  Elizabeth-Town  patents  had  refused 
to  repatent  their  lands  under  the  proprietors,  and  declined  to 
take  the  oaths  to  the  proprietors;  and  thus  in  a  short  time 
after  Carteret  had  issued  his  writ  for  the  first  election  the 
necessity  arose  for  a  definition  of  a  freehold.  The  governor 
and  council  met  the  conditions  boldly  by  refusing  altogether 
the  suffrage  to  those  who  would  not  take  the  oath  of  alle 
giance  : 

"  Prohibition  for  those  at  Navesinks  to  bare  any  office  or  have  any 
Vote  in  Election  till  they  have  taken  the  Oath. 

"...  No  person  or  persons  are  to  be  admitted  as  a  Freed  man  or 
Freholders  of  this  Province  of  New  Jersey  .  .  .  untill  they  have  taken 
or  subscribed  to  the  Oath  of  Aleagance  to  our  Soveraign  Lord  the  King 
and  his  Successors  and  to  be  true  and  faithfull  to  the  Interest  of  the 
Lords  Proprietors.  .  .  ."* 

But  it  was  difficult  to  enforce  such  a  rule  when  voting  was 
done  in  the  towns  without  any  control  by  the  governor  and 

1N.  J.  Archives,  I,  56;    Whitehead,  East  Jersey,  59. 
*  Whitehead,  East  Jersey,  59,  note  3. 
*N.  J.  Archives,  I,  58. 


The  Suffrage  in  New  Jersey.  233 

council.  Naturally,  the  next  step  was  to  threaten  the  towns 
which  permitted  illegal  voting.  The  inhabitants  of  Wood- 
bridge  had  been  granted  a  charter,1  with  the  right  to  elect 
local  magistrates  and  deputies  to  the  assembly ;  but  they  had 
admitted  some  illegal  voters  to  their  town  meetings,  and 
now  Governor  Carteret  threatens  them  with  the  forfeiture 
of  their  charter.  This  proclamation  goes  a  step  farther 
than  the  one  to  Navesinks,  where  the  requirement  was  only 
the  taking  of  the  oaths,  by 'demanding  also  the  formal  pat 
enting  of  lands  as  a  qualification  for  voting : 

"  Whereas  I  have  Reseved  information  that  ther  are  severall  persons 
which  you  have  Admitted  to  have  ther  voices  in  ye  towne  meetings,  that 
have  not  any  Land  Surveyed  and  pattented  according  to  theire  Articles 
and  the  tenner  of  the  Charter  granted  to  your  Corporation,  But  on  the 
Contrary  in  Contempt  doe  Wilfully  neglect  the  same,  Against  the  Lords 
Proprietors  Authority,  and  to  the  prejudice  and  hindrance  of  all  other 
honest  minded  men,  as  also  the  indangering  of  the  breach  of  your 
Charter  by  ye  suffering  of  such  malignant  Spirits  to  live  amongst  you, 
or  to  have  anything  to  doe  in  your  publick  afairs,  for  the  preventing 
whereof  I  have  thought  good  by  the  advise  of  my  Counsell  to  signify 
this  unto  you;  That  all  such  persons  that  are  not  conformeable  to  the 
Tenner  of  your  Charter,  and  that  have  not  pattented  their  land  accord 
ingly  are  not  from  this  day  forward  to  [be]  Accompted  as  freholders, 
and  by  Conciquence  are  not  to  have  any  ofice  whatsoever;  nor  to  have 
any  vote  or  voice  in  your  towne  metings  upon  any  publick  busines 
whatsoever;  nor  yett  to  enjoy  any  lands  within  the  bounds  of  your  Cor 
poration;  but  [it]  shal  and  may  be  lawful  for  you  to  dispose  of  those 
lands  intended  for  them  for  the  other  persons'  that  will  be  obedient  or 
submit  themselves  to  the  laws  and  government  of  the  province.  .  .  ." 2 

This  was  in  October,  1670,  and  in  the  mean  time  the 
proprietary  quit-rents  had  become  due,  March  25,  1670,  and 
many  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  tracts  granted  by  Nicholls 
refused  to  make  the  payments  to  the  New  Jersey  proprietors. 
The  Newark  settlers  had  provided  for  the  prompt  payment 
of  their  rents,3  but  the  Elizabeth-Town  and  Monmouth  pat 
ent  inhabitants  refused  to  pay,  claiming  their  prior  grants. 

1  See  charter  in  N.  J.  Historical  Society  Collections,  I,  184. 

2  N.  J.  Archives,  I,  63. 

8  Newark  Town  Records,  N.  J.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.,  VI.  30. 


234     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

Several  irregular  meetings  of  deputies  were  held  during  this 
period,1  presumably  to  take  general  action  against  the  pro 
prietors.  In  May,  1672,  representatives  of  five  towns  met 
at  Elizabeth-Town,  and,  taking  advantage  of  the  absence  of 
Governor  Carteret  in  New  York,  they  elected  James  Car- 
teret,  a  son  of  the  proprietor,  Sir  George  Carteret,  as  "  Presi 
dent  of  the  Country."  2  Upon  this  the  governor  was  com 
pelled  to  return  to  England,  where  his  actions  were  sus 
tained  by  the  proprietors,  even  against  Carteret's  own  son. 

Governor  Carteret  returned  to  the  province  with  docu 
ments  confirming  his  own  authority,  the  rights  of  the  pro 
prietors,  and  vesting  political  power  within  the  province  in 
those  only  who  held  proprietary  titles  to  their  lands.  The 
king  sent  over  a  letter  directed  to  the  governor  and  council 
of  the  province  commanding  all  persons  to  yield  allegiance 
to  Berkeley  and  Carteret.3  The  proprietors  forwarded  "  a 
declaration  of  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  the  Conces 
sions,"  in  which  the  old  Nicholls  patentees  were  expressly 
excluded  from  the  suffrage : 

"  .  .  .  no  person  or  persons  whatsoever  shall  be  counted  a  free 
holder  of  the  said  Province,  nor  have  any  vote  in  electing,  nor  be  capable 
of  being  elected  for  any  office  of  trust,  either  civil  or  military,  until  he 
doth  actually  hold  his  or  their  lands  by  patent  from  us,  the  Lords  pro 
prietors."  * 

These  documents  were  published  by  the  governor  upon  his 
arrival,  and  warnings  sent  to  the  towns  to  have  their  lands 
surveyed  and  registered.5  But  the  process  of  reducing  all 
the  inhabitants  to  the  rule  of  the  proprietors  was  unexpect 
edly  interrupted  by  the  reconquest  of  all  the  region  from 
the  Delaware  to  the  Hudson  by  the  Dutch  in  the  summer 
of  1673. 

After  the  Dutch  fleet  had  taken  New  York  City,  the  New 
Jersey  towns  near  New  York  sent  commissioners  to  the 

1  Whitehead,  East  Jersey,  60,  note  3 ;    66-69. 

2  Ibid.,  67. 

3  Learning  and  Spicer,  38. 

*  Ibid.,  32-34;   Whitehead,  East  Jersey,  71. 
6  N.  J.  Archives,  I,  119. 


The  Suffrage  in  Neiv  Jersey.  235 

Dutch  officers  at  New  Orange  (New  York),  yielding  their 
allegiance  to  the  Dutch,1  and  receiving  in  return  the  same 
privileges  as  those  granted  to  the  Dutch  towns.2  In  the 
towns,  where  the  charters  of  Governor  Carteret  had  granted 
the  local  suffrage  to  all  freeholders,  the  Dutch  established 
the  system  of  double  nomination  which  had  been  such  a  dis 
tinctive  feature  of  their  earlier  government  in  the  New 
Netherland  region.3  The  Dutch  retained  control  of  their 
old  territory  only  a  few  months,  and  in  February,  1674,  the 
New  York,  New  Jersey,  and  Delaware  lands  were  all  re 
stored  to  the  English  by  treaty,  occupation  being  taken  by 
Edmund  Andros  for  the  English  in  October,  1674. 

After  the  retrocession  of  the  lands  to  the  English,  King 
Charles  made  a  second  grant  to  his  brother  James,4  and 
James  in  turn  made  a  second  grant  of  New  Jersey.5  But 
this  new  grant  was  made  only  to  Carteret  and  did  not  in 
clude  all  the  province,  for  as  early  as  March,  1673,  Berkeley 
had  disposed  of  his  undivided  half  of  New  Jersey  to  John 
Fenwick  in  trust  for  Edward  Byllinge.6  The  Duke  of  York 
thus  recognized  the  division  of  the  province,  and  in  his  grant 
to  Carteret  gave  him  the  better  part  of  the  territory:  that 
north  of  a  line  drawn  from  Barnegat  Creek  to  a  point  on 
the  Delaware  below  Renkokus  Creek.  The  division  of  the 
land  made  by  this  grant  was  naturally  not  acceptable  to  the 
successors  of  Berkeley,  and  on  July  i,  1676,  a  quintipartite 
deed  of  division  was  drawn  up  between  Byllinge  and  his 

1 N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  XIII,  473. 

2N.  J.  Archives,  I,  124.  At  the  time  of  the  surrender  to  the  Dutch, 
there  were  estimated  to  be  391  male  inhabitants  (freeholders?)  in  the 
province,  of  whom  327  took  the  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  Dutch  (Ar 
chives,  I,  133). 

*  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  XIII,  477 ;   N.  J.  Archives,  I,  126.    A  most  curious 
system  of  triple  nomination  and  indirect  election  was  established.    Each 
of  the  English  towns  in  New  Jersey  was  to  elect  two  deputies;    these 
deputies  were  to  meet  and  to  nominate  three  persons  for  schout  (sheriff) 
and  three  for  secretary,  and   from  these  nominees  the  Director  and 
Council  would  select  one  for  each  office. 

*  Learning  and  Spicer,  41-45. 

5  July  29,  1674.     Learning  and  Spicer,  46-48. 
9  Whitehead,  East  Jersey,  81. 


236     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

assignees  on  one  part  and  Carteret  on  the  other,  by  which 
the  share  of  the  Berkeley  claimants,  now  called  West  Jersey, 
was  very  considerably  enlarged.1  From  this  time  until  the 
assumption  of  control  by  the  Crown  in  1702,  New  Jersey 
was  divided  into  two  political  organizations,  with  distinct 
policies  and  development.  We  must,  therefore,  turn  our 
attention  first  of  all  to  the  continuation  of  the  struggle 
between  Carteret  and  his  settlers  in  East  Jersey,  and  then 
take  a  summary  view  of  the  suffrage  as  it  existed  in  West 
Jersey  under  the  proprietors. 

Upon  his  return  to  the  province  after  the  Dutch  occupa 
tion,  Governor  Carteret  was  again  fortified  with  ample 
powers  to  bring  the  malcontents  upon  the  Nicholls  grants  to 
terms.  A  second  letter  from  King  Charles  was  obtained, 
acknowledging  Carteret's  title  and  commanding  all  to  yield 
him  obedience ; 2  still  more  additional  directions  were  made 
supplementary  to  the  original  Concessions.3  One  year's  time 
was  given  to  the  Nicholls  patentees  to  repatent  their  lands, 
and  at  the  end  of  that  time,  if  the  new  registration  were  not 
made,  the  lands  and  homes  of  the  occupiers  were  to  be  for 
feited.  No  one  could  vote  nor  hold  office  unless  his  land 
was  obtained  by  the  proprietary  title;  and  the  people  of  one 
of  Nicholls's  grants  who  had  peaceably  submitted  were  re 
warded  with  greater  political  privileges  in  matters  of  local 
government.  Thus  threats  and  hopes  of  rewards  were  both 
used  to  bring  the  obdurate  settlers  to  a  recognition  of  the 
proprietary  rights. 

The  reasons  for  the  refusal  of  the  old  settlers  to  take  out 
new  patents  were  threefold:  the  inconvenience  of  new  sur 
veys  and  registration,  the  fees  and  cost  of  repatenting,  and 
the  perpetual  quit-rents  which  the  new  patents  required. 
The  governor  made  the  matter  as  convenient  as  possible  by 
appointing  special  days  upon  which  inhabitants  could  take 
out  their  patents,  and  thus  become  "  quallified  as  well  for  a 
Generall  Assembly  as  Elective  for  other  Offices."  4  The 

1  Learning  and  Spicer,  61-72. 

2  Ibid.,  49- 

3  Ibid.,  50-57. 

4  N.  J.  Archives,  I,  176. 


The  Suffrage  in  New  Jersey.  237 

second  assembly  of  the  province  met  in  the  fall  of  I675,1  and 
from  that  time  until  1688  frequent  assemblies  were  held. 
Yet  the  electors  and  members  of  these  assemblies  appear  not 
to  have  been  always  qualified  according  to  the  instructions 
of  the  proprietor;2  many  of  the  old  inhabitants  must  still 
have  refused  to  patent  their  lands  under  the  proprietor ;  and 
yet  the  governor  could  not  prevent  their  voting  and  even 
sitting  in  the  assembly. 

Other  difficulties  now  beset  the  province.  The  Duke  of 
York's  governor  in  New  York,  Edmund  Andros,  claimed  the 
right  to  levy  customs  duties  upon  all  ships  entering  New 
Jersey  ports;  and  in  the  conflict  of  authority  which  arose 
over  the  subject  Andros  entered  New  Jersey,  seized  Governor 
Carteret,  and  imprisoned  him  in  New  York.3  A  jury  failed 
to  convict  Carteret,  and  the  case  was  sent  to  England  for 
the  consideration  of  Sir  George  Carteret  and  the  Duke  of 
York.  In  the  interim  Andros  ruled  East  Jersey,  and  per 
mitted  the  inhabitants  a  privilege  which  his  master  had 
denied  New  York,  a  representative  assembly.  This  assem 
bly  stood  upon  their  rights  under  the  concessions  and  as 
Englishmen  when  Andros  tried  to  force  the  Duke  of  York's 
Book  of  Laws  upon  them : 4 

"  1680  New  Jersey  Assembly  to  the  Go : 

"June  2n(*  Wee  the  Deputies  of  the  Freeholders  of  this  Province  of 
New  Jersey  doe  expect  that  all  privileges  belonging  to  Inhabitants  & 
Freeholders  of  the  sd  Province  granted  to  them  by  Vertue  of  the  Con 
cessions  made  by  the  L<*  John  Berkeley  &  Sr  George  Carterett  bee  to  all 
Intents  &  Purposes  allowed  &  confirmed  &  maintained  to  the  aforesaid 
Inhabitnts  &  Freeholders  without  any  Inf ringment :  one  particular 
principal  whereof  is  as  of  right  belonging  to  every  free  borne  English 
man,  that  there  bee  a  Generall  Assembly  called  once  a  yeare  .  .  ." B 

The  independent  attitude  of  the  assembly  was  shown  not 
only  towards  Andros,  but  also  towards  Governor  Carteret 
when,  after  the  disavowal  of  Andres's  acts,  he  was  reinstated 

1  Learning  and  Spicer,  94. 

2  AT.  /.  Archives,  1,364. 

3  Smith,  New  Jersey,  68 ;    Whitehead,  East  Jersey,  93. 

4  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  XIII,  541 ;   N.  f.  Archives,  I,  296-7 ;   305  ff. 
*Ibid,,  311. 


238     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

in  authority.  The  assembly  of  October,  1681,  appears  to 
have  been  under  the  influence  of  the  settlers  upon  the  Nich- 
olls  grants,  and  accordingly  the  session  was  a  very  stormy 
one,  in  which  the  assembly  protested  against  the  orders  of 
the  proprietors  in  1672,  which  had  limited  political  privileges 
to  those  who  held  proprietary  titles ;  and  the  governor  denied 
the  right  of  many  of  the  assembly  to  sit  in  the  house  at  all 
because  they  did  not  possess  patents  from  the  proprietors.1 

This  was  the  last  assembly  held  under  the  authority  of  the 
Carterets,  and  it  was  the  most  turbulent.  Throughout  the 
whole  period  in  which  Sir  George  Carteret  or  his  family  held 
East  Jersey  the  province  was  in  a  state  of  turmoil  over  the 
land  question.  The  disputes  arose  out  of  the  unfortunate 
grants  made  by  Nicholls,  and  their  termination  was  not 
reached  until  over  fifty  years  had  passed.  The  proprietors 
used  every  means  within  their  power  to  bring  the  Nicholls 
patentees  to  terms.  Forcible  eviction  was  threatened,  and 
perhaps  tried  in  a  few  cases ;  submission  was  encouraged  by 
granting  additional  privileges  to  those  who  had  peaceably 
acknowledged  Carteret's  authority;  and  as  a  last  resort,  in 
the  instructions  of  1672  and  1674,  the  proprietor  had  directed 
that  those  refusing  to  recognize  his  authority  should  be 
debarred  from  political  privileges,  both  in  the  towns  and  in 
the  provincial  elections.  But  the  situation  was  one  in  which 
the  possessor  was  stronger  than  the  absent  proprietor  or  his 
governor  in  the  colony;  evictions  were  almost  impossible 
when  such  a  large  part  of  the  population  was  concerned. 
The  occupiers  retained  possession,  and  in  addition  often  exer 
cised  political  rights.  The  whole  situation  is  most  interest 
ing  as  showing  the  close  connection  between  political  privi 
leges  and  land-holding;  and  it  illustrates  the  difficulty  of 
enforcing  abstract  title  rights  in  a  new  country. 

After  the  death  of  Sir  George  Carteret  in  1680,  the  trus 
tees  of  his  estate  sold  East  Jersey  at  auction  to  William  Penn 

1  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  Ill,  293-300;  N.  J.  Archives,  I,  354-365.  Concern 
ing  the  additional  instruction  of  1672,  the  Assembly  said :  "  The  Lords 
would  likely  neuer  haue  had  a  thought  of  such  Contradicc'on  of  them 
selves  had  it  not  been  a  bratt  begotten  in  New  Jersey  sent  for  England 
to  be  borne  and  Retransported  to  New  Jersey  to  be  fed  with  the  groanes 
and  Oppressions  of  the  People."  (Archives,  I,  363.) 


The  Suffrage  in  New  Jersey.  239 

and  eleven  associates.1  And  shortly  after  this  each  of  the 
twelve  purchasers  disposed  of  one-half  of  his  share  to 
another,  thus  making  in  all  twenty-four  proprietors.  In 
order  to  make  their  title  to  the  province  more  secure,  the 
new  proprietors  obtained  a  new  release  from  the  Duke  of 
York  2  and  a  letter  from  the  king  recognizing  their  right 
to  their  purchase.  Having  thus  settled  their  title,  the  pro 
prietors  appointed  a  governor,  Robert  Barclay,  the  famous 
Quaker  apologist,  and  Barclay  in  turn  appointed  a  deputy 
who  was  to  reside  in  the  province. 

Following  these  first  steps  in  provincial  organization,  the 
proprietors  of  East  Jersey  issued  a  most  remarkable  political 
code  for  the  province,  called  "  The  Fundamental  Constitu 
tions  for  the  Province  of  East  New  Jersey  in  America."  3 
This  frame  of  government  provided  in  elaborate  terms  for  a 
great  council  composed  of  the  twenty-four  proprietors  or 
their  proxies  and  representatives  of  the  freemen  to  the  num 
ber  of  seventy-two  or  one  hundred  and  forty-four.  A  great 
advance  was  made  by  the  constitutions  upon  the  subject  of 
the  suffrage.  The  old  vague  term  "  freeholder"  was  care 
fully  defined,  and  non-freeholders  who  rented  houses  in 
towns  were  allowed  the  privilege  of  voting : 

"  The  persons  qualified  to  be  freemen,  that  are  capable  to  choose  and 
be  chosen  in  the  Great  Council,  shall  be  every  planter  and  inhabitant 
dwelling  and  residing  within  the  Province,  who  hath  acquired  rights  to 
and  is  in  possession  of  fifty  acres  of  ground,  and  hath  cultivated  ten 
acres  of  it ;  or  in  boroughs,  who  hath  a  house  and  three  acres ;  or  have 
a  house  and  land  only  hired,  if  he  can  prove  he  have  fifty  pounds  in 
stock  of  his  own."  * 

Thus  a  decided  step  towards  political  equality  was  proposed 
by  the  proprietors,  and  the  artisans  and  small  freeholders  of 
the  towns  were  placed  upon  an  equality  with  the  larger  free 
holders  of  the  country  districts ;  while  the  rights  of  the  latter 

1  February  i  and  2,  1681-2 ;  Learning  and  Spicer,  73 ;  Whitehead,  East 
Jersey,  103. 

*  Learning  and  Spicer,  141-150. 
"Ibid.,  153-166. 
4  Article  III  of  the  Constitutions. 


240     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

were  restricted  by  requiring  the  country  freeholder  to  be  in 
possession,  and  to  have  under  cultivation  at  least  ten  acres 
of  his  freehold.1  The  proposed  arrangement,  which  was 
nearer  to  political  equity  than  the  old  qualifications,  had  one 
defect,  for  by  it  the  freeholder  must  have  "  acquired  rights 
to"  his  land ;  and  this  might  lead,  and  indeed  eventually  did 
lead,  to  the  old  trouble  concerning  proprietary  titles. 

Among  the  proprietors,  who  were  to  constitute  one  house 
of  the  assembly,  the  suffrage  qualifications  were  closely  lim 
ited.  No  proprietor  could  retain  his  vote  unless  he  kept  at 
least  one- fourth  of  his  propriety ;  and  as  there  were  twenty- 
four  proprieties  at  first,  at  least  one-ninety-sixth  of  the  whole 
province  of  East  Jersey  must  be  retained  by  each  proprietor. 
If  any  proprietor  thus  forfeited  his  right  to  vote  in  the  pro 
prietary  council,  his  right  might  be  passed  on  to  others  who 
held  the  required  amount,  or  after  forty  years  had  elapsed, 
and  vacancies  still  appeared,  then  selections  might  be  made 
from  those  possessing  five  thousand  or  three  thousand  acres 
of  land.  As  an  apologist  for  the  Fundamental  Constitutions 
says,— 

"To  avoid  Lording  over  one  another,  No  man  can  purchase  above 
the  24th  part  of  the  Cotmtrey ;  and  on  the  other  hand,  least  any  should 
squander  away  their  Interest,  and  yet  retain  the  character  of  the  Gov 
ernment  that  belongs  to  Property,  and  thence  be  capable  to  betray  it, 
as  not  being  bound  by  Interest,  there  must  be  a  suitable  quantity  re 
tained,  otherwise  the  Title  in  the  Government  extinguishes  in  him,  and 
passes  to  another,  to  be  Elected  by  the  Proprietors,  that  Dominion  may 
follow  Property,  and  the  inconveniency  of  a  Beggarly  Nobility  and 
Gentry  may  be  avoided."  * 

Such  was  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  century  conception 
of  political  rights;  dominion  should  follow  property,  and 
the  privilege  of  participating  in  government  was  conditioned 

1  The  requirement  that  part  of  freehold  should  be  cultivated  is  seen 
in  Penn's  Laws  Made  in  England ;  in  Markham's  Frame  for  Penna. ; 
Penna.  Act  of  November  27,  1700,  and  January  12,  1705-6,  and  Delaware 
Act  of  1734. 

*  George  Scot  in  Model  of  the  Government  of  the  Province  of  East- 
New-Jersey,  London,  1685 ;  reprinted  in  N.  J.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.,  I,  239  ff ; 
269. 


The  Suffrage  in  New  Jersey.  241 

upon  the  antecedent  participation  in  the  wealth  of  the  coun 
try ;  the  politically  efficient  were  those  "  bound  by  Interest."  l 

This  proposed  code  never  went  into  effect,  for,  although 
the  proprietors  thought  they  had  granted  many  new  privi 
leges  in  the  Fundamental  Constitutions,  the  people  and  as 
sembly  did  not  view  the  code  in  the  same  light ;  further,  the 
new  frame  was  to  go  into  effect  only  upon  those  who  would 
submit  to  a  new  survey  of  their  lands,  accepting  new  titles, 
paying  all  old  quit-rents,  and  who  promised  to  make  pro 
vision  for  the  support  of  the  government.2  Such  restrictions 
would  have  defeated  a  much  better  constitution  than  the 
Fundamentals  of  1683.  The  governor  in  the  province  was 
compelled  to  retain  the  government  under  the  Concessions  of 
1665,  and  in  April,  1686,  the  assembly  decidedly  refused  to 
accept  the  new  frame.  After  that  time  it  is  supposed  that  no 
further  action  was  taken  towards  the  establishment  of  the 
code.3 

But  one  more  feature  of  a  constitutional  nature  remains  to 
be  noted  before  the  surrender  of  East  Jersey  to  the  Crown. 
Between  1686  and  1702  the  province  had  passed  through 
many  experiences;  comparative  peace  had  reigned  between 
1686  to  1688,  and  then  the  land  was  turned  over  to  Andros 
as  part  of  his  "  Dominion  of  New  England;"  from  1689  till 
1692  there  was  no  general  provincial  government  whatever; 
then  came  a  few  years  of  quiet  until  the  arrival  of  Governor 
Basse  in  1697.  During  all  this  time  the  only  consecutive 
policy  was  the  popular  opposition  to  the  proprietary  quit- 
rents.  So  unsatisfactory  and  costly  was  the  collection  of  the 
rents,  that  at  last  the  proprietors  proposed  to  commute  them 
into  a  single  payment,  and  then  vest  the  land  in  fee  in  the 
holders.4  At  this  point  the  proprietors  used  the  same  threats 
and  promises  which  Carteret  had  employed  in  1672  and 
1674.  It  was  provided  that  when  the  people  have  purchased 
at  least  one-half  of  the  quit-rents  and  paid  arrears  of  rents, 

1  Cf.  the  Virginia  Bill  of  Rights  of  1776:    "  All  men,  having  sufficient 
evidence  of  permanent  common  interest  with,  and  attachment  to,  the 
community,  have  the  right  of  suffrage." 

2  Learning  and  Spicer,  179-181. 

3  Whitehead,  East  Jersey,  133;    134,  note  i. 

4  Learning  and  Spicer,  214-219. 

16 


242     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

and  the  assembly  has  made  provision  for  support  of  the  gov 
ernment,  then  the  governor  may  agree  to  a  general  law  for 
the  annual  meetings  of  assembly,  and  the  assembly  may  have 
the  power  to  name  a  double  number  of  candidates  for  local 
county  offices,  the  governor  selecting  a  single  number  for  the 
offices;  but  if  in  any  county  or  town  a  major  part  of  the 
freeholders  do  not  so  commute  their  rents,  then  that  town 
or  county  should  not  have  the  privilege  of  nomination  of 
their  officers  by  assembly,  but  the  governor  should  appoint 
all  local  officers;  provided,  that  such  political  privileges  as 
were  granted  under  these  terms  should  continue  only  so  long 
as  the  assembly  made  provision  for  the  support  of  the  gov 
ernment.1 

It  was  but  natural  that  Englishmen  should  reject  such 
propositions  as  these ;  for,  although  the  payment  of  the  quit- 
rents  may  have  been  a  reasonable,  or  at  least  a  legal,  claim 
of  the  proprietors,  the  conditioning  of  political  privileges 
upon  the  payment  of  the  rents  was  vicious  in  principle. 
These  were  the  people  who  in  1680  had  told  Andros  that 
it  is  a  "  right  belonging  to  every  free  borne  Englishman, 
that  there  bee  a  Generall  Assembly  called  once  a  yeare;"  and 
now  their  "  birth-right  privileges"  must  be  bartered  for  quit- 
rents  at  the  rate  of  a  ha'penny  an  acre.  Yet  the  colonists 
were  ready  to  pay  off  the  rents  if  an  equitable  agreement 
could  be  reached,  and  went  so  far  as  to  send  a  special  agent 
to  England  to  confer  with  the  proprietors.2  But  in  drawing 
up  a  statement  of  the  rights  of  the  subjects  in  1699,  the 
assembly  omitted  to  give  any  other  qualification  of  the  suf 
frage  than  simple  freeholdership,3  thereby  ignoring  all  the 
proprietary  claims  to  rents  or  new  surveys. 

There  followed  several  years  of  confusion  and  disorder. 
The  governor  appointed  sheriffs  and  county  officers  in  ac 
cordance  with  his  instructions,  but  the  people  refused  to  obey 
them  and  violently  attacked  the  justices  and  sheriffs,  and 
even  kept  Governor  Hamilton  in  confinement  for  several 

1  Instructions  to  Governor  Basse,  April  14,  1698,  Learning  and  Spicer, 
214-219. 

3  Whitehead,  East  Jersey,  193. 
a  Learning  and  Spicer,  368-372. 


The  Suffrage  in  New  Jersey.  243 

days.1  In  these  days,  called  the  "  Revolution,"  the  governor 
attempted  to  dispossess  some  of  the  settlers  of  their  lands,2 
and  at  last  the  people  petitioned  the  king  to  take  the  govern 
ment  into  his  own  hands.3  It  was  undoubtedly  believed  at 
this  time  that  with  the  overthrow  of  the  proprietary  govern 
ment  would  go  all  the  proprietary  quit-rents  and  troubles 
over  the  ownership  of  the  soil.4  The  transfer  to  the  Crown_ 
was  made  in  I7O2,5  and  after  that  change  in  autHorrty  trie 
suffrage  dispute  centred  about  other  matters  than  the  abstract 
title  to  land. 

We  must  now  retrace  our  course  to  the  year  1676,  in  which 
the  division  of  New  Jersey  into  the  two  sections,  East  and 
West  Jersey,  was  made  by  the  drafting  of  the  quintipartite 
deed.  In  the  western  section,  as  in  the  eastern,  the  subject 
of  land  titles  was  a  perennial  source  of  trouble,  but  there  was 
one  difference  between  the  two  divisions  in  favor  of  West 
Jersey.  In  East  Jersey  the  land  troubles  arose  between  the 
settlers  and  the  proprietors,  giving  rise  to  strong  protests 
and  revolutionary  acts  against  the  proprietors  on  the  one 
hand,  and  to  evictions  and  political  disfranchisement  of  the 
settlers  on  the  other.  In  West  Jersey  the  land  disputes  were 
generally  among  the  proprietors  or  proprietary  claimants 
themselves,  and  there  was  no  definite  arraying  of  popular 
classes  against  the  large  hereditary  owners  of  the  land.  And 
it  will  be  seen  also  that  West  Jersey  enjoyed  a  larger  measure 
of  local  self-government  and  more  freedom  from  European 
restraint  than  was  the  case  in  East  Jersey.  Thus,  down  to 
the  union  of  the  two  divisions  and  the  assumption  of  control 
by  the  Crown  in  1702,  the  history  of  West  Jersey  shows  less 
turbulence  and  violence  than  is  to  be  found  in  the  eastern 
section. 

It  is,  of  course,  not  our  purpose  to  study  in  detail  the  land 
disputes,  but  clearness  demands  that  a  short  statement  be 
made  of  the  title  changes  in  West  Jersey  down  to  1702.  In 

1  Whitehead,  East  Jersey,  215. 

2  New  Jersey  Historical  Society  Collections,  V,  30. 

3  Ibid.,  30,  32. 

*  Whitehead,  East  Jersey,  214. 

5  Learning  and  Spicer,  609-617.    The  transfer  papers  were  signed  April 
15,  1702,  and  accepted  by  the  queen  on  April  17. 


244     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

the  year  1673  Lord  Berkeley  had  sold  his  undivided  share 
in  New  Jersey  to  John  Fenwick  in  trust  for  Edward  Byl- 
linge ;  and  a  contest  arising  between  Byllinge  and  Fenwick, 
William  Penn  was  appointed  arbitrator  by  a  Friends'  meet 
ing  in  London,  and  Penn  awarded  an  undivided  tenth  of 
West  Jersey  to  Fenwick  and  the  other  undivided  nine-tenths 
to  Byllinge.  After  much  pressure,  Fenwick  accepted  this 
decision,  while  Byllinge  turned  over  his  nine-tenths  to  Penn, 
Laurie,  and  Lucas  as  trustees  for  his  creditors.  Fenwick 
then  mortgaged  his  one-tenth  to  Eldridge  and  Warner  on  a 
one  thousand-year  lease  for  £110,  and  having  thus  disposed 
of  his  land,  set  sail  for  America;  and,  the  only  one  of  all 
the  proprietary  claimants  upon  the  spot,  Fenwick  began 
granting  lands  without  regard  to  the  rights  of  Byllinge's 
trustees  or  his  own  mortgagees.  In  the  mean  time,  sales  of 
land  having  been  made  in  England  to  so-called  proprietors, 
it  was  proposed  to  divide  the  land  into  tenths,  and  a  company 
of  proprietors  from  Yorkshire  agreed  to  settle  upon  one  of 
these  tenths,  and  a  company  from  London  upon  another. 
The  proprietors  in  England  then  elected  Byllinge  as  gov 
ernor  and  allowed  him  to  appoint  a  deputy.  In  1680,  in 
order  to  make  the  title  more  secure,  a  new  grant  was  obtained 
from  the  Duke  of  York,  but  this  only  complicated  matters 
by  granting  the  lands  to  the  assignees  of  Fenwick  and  Byl 
linge,  but  the  political  power  to  Byllinge  himself.  Byllinge's 
power  in  the  colony  was  not  at  first  recognized,  but  later  his 
governor  was  accepted.  In  1683  Fenwick  sold  all  his  share 
in  West  Jersey  except  150,000  acres  to  William  Penn  for 
ten  shillings,  and  thus  one  of  the  most  disturbing  elements 
of  the  colony  was  quieted.1  After  Byllinge's  death  in  1687, 
Daniel  Coxe,  of  London,  already  holding  a  large  proprietary 
interest,  bought  the  rights  of  Byllinge's  heirs  and  claimed  the 
sole  political  authority;  but  in  1692  Coxe  transferred  his 
interest  to  a  company  of  proprietors,  who  styled  themselves 
the  West  Jersey  Society,  and  who  appointed  their  first  gov 
ernor  in  the  same  year.  This  society  retained  the  land  and 
political  rights  until  the  surrender  to  the  Crown  in  1702, 

1  For  the  interesting  personality  of  John  Fenwick,  see  R.  G.  Johnson, 
History  of  Salem  (N.  /.)  :  Shourds,  Femvick's  Colony;  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc., 
XII ;  N.  J.  Archives,  I ;  Smith,  History  of  N.  J.,  79  ff. 


The  Suffrage  in  New  Jersey.  245 

when  they  yielded  their  political  power,  but  their  title  to  all 
unoccupied  land  is  still  (1904)  valid,  and  the  society  keeps 
up  its  organization  in  West  Jersey.1 

Turning  now  to  the  subject  of  the  suffrage  in  West  Jer 
sey,  we  need  not  mention  the  informal  meetings  held  by 
Fenwick  2  in  his  colony,  but  must  notice  first  of  all  the  suf 
frage  provisions  in  the  first  frame  of  government  for  West 
Jersey,  called  "  The  Concessions  and  Agreements  of  the 
Proprietors,  Freeholders  and  Inhabitants  of  the  Province  of 
West  New  Jersey,  in  America."  3  This  remarkably  liberal 
constitution  was  drawn  up  in  England,  dated  March  3, 
1676-7,  and  was  signed  by  one  hundred  and  fifty-one  per 
sons,  among  whom  were  Penn,  Laurie,  Lucas,  Warner,  Byl- 
linge,  Olive,  and  Jennings,  all  greatly  interested  in  New 
Jersey  history.  The  Concessions  partake  of  the  nature  of 
an  agreement  between  the  intending  settlers  and  the  English 
proprietors,  and  they  appear  to  have  been  signed  by  Byllinge 
and  his  representatives,  by  the  new  purchasing  proprietors, 
and  by  those  about  to  sail  for  the  colony. 

The  Concessions  provided  for  the  division  of  the  country 
into  tenths,  and  each  tenth  in  turn  into  ten  proprietaries, 
making  one  hundred  proprietaries  for  the  whole  province, 
and  determined  the  amounts  of  land  which  should  be  given 
to  new  settlers,  tracts  which  were  much  smaller  than  those 
we  have  seen  were  granted  to  the  settlers  in  East  Jersey 
under  the  Concessions  of  1665.  They  further  provided  for  a 
temporary  and  permanent  government  by  officers  elected  by 
the  people.  The  temporary  government  was  composed  of 
commissioners  elected  by  "  the  proprietors,  Freeholders  and 
Inhabitants"  of  each  of  the  tenths,  who  were  to  govern  and 
order  the  affairs  of  the  province  for  the  good  and  welfare  of 
the  people.  The  commissioners  were  to  be  elected  by  ballot : 

"  And  the  said  Elections  shall  be  made  and  distinguished  by  balloting 
Trunks,  to  avoid  noise  and  confusion,  and  not  by  Voices,  holding  up  of 
the  Hands,  or  otherwise  howsoever."  * 

1  See  The  Surveyors'  Association  of  West  New  Jersey,  118-144. 
•  N.  J.  Col.  Archives,  I,  225,  275. 

:1  Learning  and  Spicer,  382-411 ;   N.  J.  Archives,  I,  240  ff;    Smith,  New 
Jersey,  521  ff. 
4  Article  III. 


246     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

These  commissioners  were  to  continue  to  be  elected  by  annual 
elections  until  "  distinctions  of  tribes"  occur,  and  then  there 
was  to  be  a  "  General,  Free  and  Supream  Assembly"  com 
posed  of  one  member  from  each  of  the  one  hundred  proprie 
taries,  elected  by  the  "  inhabitants,  freeholders,  and  proprie 
tors." 

The  West  Jersey  Concessions  of  1677  were  more  liberal 
to  the  settlers  than  were  the  Fundamental  Constitutions  of 
East  Jersey  of  1683.  The  assembly  according  to  the  latter 
was  made  up  of  two  houses,  one  of  which  was  composed 
solely  of  those  holding  definite  proprietary  interests  in  the 
province ;  while  in  West  Jersey  the  proprietors  did  not  retain 
to  themselves  any  such  share  in  legislation ;  for  in  references 
f  I  to  the  suffrage  the  three  words,  inhabitants,  freeholders,  and 
//proprietors,  are  used,  and  no  attempt  is  made  to  vest  with 
superior  political  privileges  those  who  hold  title  to  the  unoc 
cupied  land.  The  humblest  freeholder  and  the  greatest  pro 
prietor  are  on  a  political  equality  and  each  may  in  orderly 
fashion  cast  his  vote  into  the  "  balloting  trunk."  The  repre 
sentatives  thus  elected  were  called  the  "  trustees"  of  the 
people;  they  were  directly  responsible  to  their  constituents, 
who  had  the  power  to  instruct  them  upon  public  measures; 
and  they  were  to  be  paid  by  the  people  of  their  several  dis 
tricts,  that  thereby  each  "  may  be  known  to  be  the  Servant 
of  the  People/' 

This  elective  system  was  not  set  in  operation  until  1681, 
when  Samuel  Jennings,  deputy  governor  under  Byllinge, 
called  an  assembly,  which  soon  showed  itself  stronger  than 
the  governor.  Byllinge,  under  his  second  grant  from  the 
Duke  of  York  of  1680,  was  claiming  sole  political  authority 
of  the  province,  and  therefore  the  newly  elected  representa 
tives,  fearing  perhaps  the  withdrawal  of  the  old  Concessions, 
drew  up  a  formal  set  of  conditions,1  and  refused  to  recog 
nize  Jennings  as  governor  until  he  had  accepted  these  funda 
mentals.  This  agreement  provided  for  annual  assemblies 
elected  by  the  "  free  people"  of  the  province;  it  took  from 
the  governor  any  veto  upon  acts  of  the  assembly,  compelling 
him  to  accept  all  acts  passed  by  them ;  it  forbade  the  governor 

1  Learning  and  Spicer,  423-425. 


The  Suffrage  in  New  Jersey.  247 

to  pass  any  law  without  the  general  assembly,  and  if  he  did 
so,  he  should  be  esteemed  an  enemy  of  the  free  people  of  the 
province  and  the  law  should  be  void;  it  made  all  offices 
elective  or  appointive  by  the  assembly;  it  granted  liberty  of 
conscience,  and  no  one  was  to  be  rendered  incapable  of  hold 
ing  office  on  account  of  faith ;  finally,  this  compact  prohibited 
the  raising  of  any  tax  by  the  governor. 

After  this  first  assembly,  annual  elections  took  place  with 
considerable,  if  not  complete,  regularity  until  the  cession  to 
the  Crown  in  1702.*  These  assemblies  exercised  very  broad 
powers.  They  elected  the  councillors,  justices  of  the  peace, 
land  commissioners,  constables,  and  other  inferior  officers; 
and  in  three  years,  1683,  1684,  J685,  even  elected  their  gov 
ernor,  and  compelled  him  to  take  an  oath  to  observe  the  es 
tablished  constitution  of  the  province.2  This  was  self-gov 
ernment  in  practically  complete  form.  The  freeholders 3 
elected  the  members  of  assembly,  and  the  assembly  elected 
all  other  provincial  officers,  while  town  officers  were  occasion 
ally  elected  or  nominated  by  the  localities.4  The  tenths  re 
mained  the  unit  of  representation  until  1694,  when  the 
county  was  substituted,  Burlington  and  Gloucester  counties 
sending  twenty  representatives  each,  Salem  ten,  and  Cape 
May  five.  In  1699  this  number  of  fifty-five  representatives 
was  found  "  burdensome  and  superfluous,"  and  accordingly 
the  numbers  were  changed  to  ten  for  Burlington  and  Glou 
cester  counties,  five  for  Salem  and  three  for  Cape  May,  all 
of  whom  were  to  be  "  sufficient  freeholders."  But  in  1701 
the  old  numbers  were  once  more  adopted.5  It  is  not  at  all 
surprising  that  the  number  of  representatives  was  felt  to  be 
too  great,  for  an  almanac  of  the  time  estimates  that  West 

1  Smith,  New  Jersey,  154;    but  Learning  and  Spicer  give  no  laws  be 
tween  1685  and  1692. 
-Ibid.,  164,  189,  190. 

3  By  a  law  passed  at  the  session  of  September  26-28,  1682,  it  was  pro 
vided  that  elections  for  assemblymen  should  be  by  the  "  freeholders ;" 
while  the  two  other  terms,  "  inhabitants"  and  "  proprietors"  are  omitted 
from   the   clause,   and   were   not   reinstated   thereafter    (Learning   and 
Spicer,  455~6). 

4  Learning  and  Spicer,  454,  494,  496. 

5  fbid.,  533,  567,  58i. 


248     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

Jersey  contained  only  eight  hundred  and  thirty-two  free 
holders  ; J  thus  giving  one  representative  to  every  fifteen 
voters. 

Throughout  the  whole  period  of  separate  organization,  the 
suffrage  in  West  Jersey  was  exercised  by  those  holding  land, 
but  beyond  the  simple  word  "  freeholder"  as  used  in  the 
laws,  no  further  qualification  or  explanation  was  given ;  and 
apparently  no  disputes  occurred  which  might  create  the  ne 
cessity  for  a  clearer  definition  of  terms. 

After  years  of  negotiations,  the  transfer  of  the  Jerseys  to 
the  Crown  was  accomplished  in  1702.  As  early  as  the  year 
1699  the  proprietors  had  offered  to  surrender  their  govern 
mental  rights  to  the  Crown,  but  they  demanded  many  con 
ditions  and  guarantees.  Again  in  1701  the  proprietors  of  the 
two  sections  united  in  framing  the  conditions  upon  which  they 
would  yield  to  the  king;  and  among  the  guarantees  which 
they  asked  was  one  which  gave  the  model  for  the  later  repre 
sentative  system  of  the  royal  province  of  New  Jersey.  East 
and  West  Jersey  should  be  united,  and  a  single  assembly  for 
both  sections  should  meet  alternately  at  Perth  Amboy  and 
Burlington.  This  assembly,  the  proprietors  suggested, 
should  be  composed  of  thirty-six  members :  two  elected  by 
the  "  inhabitants  householders"  of  Perth  Amboy,  two  by 
those  of  Burlington,  sixteen  by  the  "  freeholders"  of  East 
Jersey,  and  the  same  number  by  the  freeholders  of  West 
Jersey;  and  membership  in  the  assembly  was  to  be  limited 
to  those  possessing  over  one  thousand  acres  of  land,  and  the 
right  of  suffrage  outside  the  two  towns  to  those  possessing 
a  freehold  of  one  hundred  acres.2  The  proprietors  further 
asked  for  a  confirmation  of  their  rights  to  the  soil  and  quit- 
rents,  the  right  to  appoint  the  first  governor,  religious  liberty 
for  the  inhabitants,  the  regular  establishment  of  courts,  and 
other  privileges.  But  shortly  after  this  the  Board  of  Trade 
questioned  the  right  of  the  Duke  of  York  to  alienate  his 
rights  in  government,  and  advised  the  king  to  appoint  a 
governor  for  the  provinces  without  making  terms  with  the 
existing  proprietors.3  The  following  spring  the  proprietors 

1  N.  J.  Archives,  II,  305. 

2  Learning  and  Spicer,  588,  591-3,  599- 

3  Ibid.,  603-9. 


The  Suffrage  in  New  Jersey.  249 

surrendered  their  political  powers  in  both  provinces  to  the 
queen  without  restriction  or  qualification. 

After  the  surrender  of  the  Jerseys  to  the  Crown,  we  must 
look  for  the  next  constitutional  expression  in  the  governor's 
commission  and  instructions.  Lord  Cornbury  had  already 
been  appointed  governor  of  New  York,  and  in  the  fall  of 
1702  he  was  commissioned  as  governor  over  the  neighboring 
province  of  New  Jersey.  His  commission  1  and  instruc 
tions  2  show  the  influence  of  the  demands  made  by  the  pro 
prietors,  and  granted  almost  everything  which  they  desired. 
The  assembly  was  not  so  large  as  the  proprietors  had  wished, 
but  it  was  formed  upon  the  plan  suggested  by  them,  and  the 
qualifications  both  of  members  of  the  assembly  and  of  voters 
were  similar  to  those  given  in  the  petition  of  the  proprietors. 

The  assembly  was  to  be  composed  of  twenty-four  mem 
bers,  ten  of  whom  were  chosen  by  the  freeholders  of  East 
Jersey  and  ten  by  the  freeholders  of  West  Jersey,  two  by  the 
"  inhabitants  householders"  of  Perth  Amboy  and  two  by 
those  of  Burlington.3  No  one  could  act  as  an  elector  unless 
he  possessed  one  hundred  acres  of  land  in  the  section  (East 
or  West)  in  which  he  desired  to  vote,  nor  serve  in  the  assem 
bly  unless  he  held  one  thousand  acres  in  the  section.  It  will 
be  seen  that  the  new  organization  acted  in  two  ways:  en- 

1  December  5,  1702;   Learning  and  Spicer,  647-656;    Smith,  History  of 
New  Jersey,  220-230. 

2  November  16,  1702;    Learning  and  Spicer,  619-646;    Smith,  History 
of  New  Jersey,  230-261. 

a  The  extension  of  the  suffrage  in  Burlington  and  Perth  Amboy  was 
one  of  the  requests  of  the  proprietors'  petition,  and  was  one  of  the  pro 
visions  of  the  proposed  fundamentals  of  1683  in  East  Jersey.  In  the 
town  charters  (Newark,  1666;  Bergen,  1668;  Woodbridge,  1669;  Mon- 
mouth,  1672)  the  word  freeholders  is  always  used  (see  charters  in  N.  /. 
Hist.  Soc.  Coll.,  I,  183,  184,  186;  Learning  and  Spicer,  663-4).  In  the 
legislation  concerning  towns  sometimes  the  word  freeholder  is  used 
(Laws  of  May  26  and  November  3,  1668)  ;  sometimes  the  word  "  in 
habitant"  (Ch.  VIII  of  East  Jersey  Laws  of  1686)  ;  sometimes  the  word 
"town"  (East  Jersey  Laws,  1693,  Ch.  VIII,  1608-9,  Ch.  V).  In  Bur 
lington  (West  Jersey  Laws,  Ch.  XIII  of  1693)  local  matters  were  deter 
mined  by  "  actual  inhabitants  who  enjoy  the  fee  simple  of  a  house  and 
land  therein."  In  all  these  there  is  no  reference  to  "  inhabitants  house 
holders." 


250     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

larging  the  suffrage  in  the  towns  by  allowing  all  inhabiting 
I  householders  to  vote,  and  limiting  the  suffrage  in  the  coun- 
Ijtry  by  substituting  the  new  provision  of  one  hundred  acres 
;!in  freehold  for  the  indefinite  term  "  freeholder,"  unqualified  ' 
as  to  amount.    No  exact  figures  have  been  obtained  showing 
the  effect  of  the  new  qualifications,  but  there  is  no  doubt  that 
they  were  very  unpopular,  both  on  account  of  the  restriction 
upon   members   of  the  assembly   and   upon   voters   in   the 
country.1 

Governor  Cornbury  arrived  in  New  York  in  May,  1702, 
but  his  commission  and  instructions  as  governor  of  New 
Jersey  did  not  reach  him  until  the  end  of  July,  1 703.2 
Within  a  few  days  after  the  receipt  of  these  papers,  the  gov 
ernor  visited  New  Jersey,  and  before  a  month  had  passed 
he  had  issued  his  writs  for  the  election  of  members  of  assem 
bly.3  Some  inconvenience  and  injustice  were  brought  on  in 
this  first  election  under  the  royal  government  by  the  omis 
sion  in  the  governor's  instructions  of  any  districting  scheme, 
and  accordingly  the  ten  representatives  from  the  two  divi 
sions  of  the  province  were  elected  at  large,  and  the  polls  were 
held  in  one  place,  compelling  some  voters  to  travel  over  a 
hundred  miles  to  the  voting  place.4  If  one  were  to  believe 
all  of  Colonel  Quarry's  accounts  to  the  Board  of  Trade,  there 
was  not  a  little  corruption  and  undue  influence  at  the  polls 
of  this  first  election.  Surely  no  modern  election  expert  could 
do  better  than  to  return  as  elected  one  who  received  only 
forty-two  votes  out  of  over  four  hundred ;  and  the  undefined 
powers  of  the  sheriff  of  those  days  permitted  him  to  adjourn 
the  election  and  compel  "  several  hundred  of  substantial 
housekeepers  to  sleep  out  of  doors  in  an  inclement  season  of 
the  year"  while  waiting  for  their  turn  to  vote.5 

The  assembly,  meeting  in  November,  1703,  soon  ad 
journed  till  May,  1704,  and  in  the  fall  a  new  election  took 

1N.  J.  Archives,  III,  6,  28,  71,  84;  N.  J.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.,  V,  49,  55; 
MS.  Board  of  Trade  Journals  in  Penna.  Historical  Society  Library, 
November  20,  1705. 

*  Ibid.,  II,  543,  note. 

•Ibid.,  Ill,  5. 

*Ibid.,  Ill,  16,  28;   XIII,  306. 

0  Ibid.,  Ill,  15. 


The  Suffrage  in  New  Jersey.  251 

place.  The  members  of  the  new  assembly  at  once  took  up 
the  consideration  of  the  question  of  suffrage  and  elections. 
The  governor  had  already  written  to  the  Board  of  Trade,1 
giving  three  objections  to  the  qualifications  as  fixed  in  his 
instructions :  that  some  were  chosen  to  the  assembly,  but 
could  not  serve  because  they  did  not  have  one  thousand  acres 
of  land,  although  possessing  more  than  that  value  in  land  and 
goods ;  that  some  of  those  possessing  the  required  amounts 
of  land  had  not  twenty  shillings  in  money,  "  drive  noe  trade, 
and  can  neither  read  nor  write,  nay  they  can  not  answer  a 
question  that  is  asked  them;"  and  that  the  instructions  were 
faulty  in  not  providing  for  elections  in  the  counties  instead 
of  in  the  two  divisions  at  large.  Thus  the  governor  pointed 
the  way  towards  a  more  liberal  policy,  holding  that  property 
in  goods  was  as  sufficient  a  test  of  a  man's  interest  in  the 
state  as  was  real  estate,  and  even  hinting  that  land  itself  was 
of  little  value  as  a  suffrage  qualification  if  the  elector  or 
elected  was  unable  to  read  or  write. 

While  the  governor  thus  showed  himself  in  favor  of  a 
personal  property  qualification  as  well  as  a  landed  require 
ment,  the  other  opponents  of  the  proprietary  interest  in  the 
province  were  urging  that  the  heavy  land  qualifications  were 
"  an  infringement  of  the  naturall  right  of  the  other  Inhabi 
tants  and  tend  to  enslave  them."  2  Thus  governor  and  anti- 
proprietary  party  acted  in  harmony,  and  when  the  second 
assembly  met,  in  November,  1704,  they  excluded  three  per 
sons  whose  qualifications  were  not  clearly  shown,  and  then 
by  a  bare  majority  passed  a  new  law  entitled  "  An  Act  for 
altering  the  present  Constitution,  and  Regulating  the  Elec 
tion  of  Representatives  to  serve  in  general  Assembly  in  this 
Province."  3  I  have  never  seen  a  copy  of  this  law,  but  it  is 
frequently  referred  to  in  the  correspondence  of  the  day,  in 
public  discussions,  and  in  the  journals  of  the  Board  of  Trade, 
and  from  these  sources  the  two  principal  features  of  the  act 
are  obtained.  These  features  were,  first,  the  repeal  of  the 

1  N.  J.  Archives,  III,  28. 

2  Ibid.,  37- 

3  Ibid.,  72;    88;    the  act  is  given  by  title  only  in  Bradford's  Laws 
(edition  of  1717),  5- 


252     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

clause  of  the  governor's  instructions  requiring  voters  to  pos 
sess  one  hundred  acres,  and  members  of  assembly  one  thou 
sand  acres,  and  substituting  for  that  provision  the  old  vague 
term  "  freeholder"  without  any  additional  qualification;  and 
secondly,  the  introduction  of  the  governor's  favorite  theory 
of  the  equality  of  land  and  personal  property  as  the  basis 
for  political  qualifications.1  The  exact  method  by  which  the 
equality  of  the  two  forms  of  property  was  obtained  is  not 
stated  in  any  of  the  documents  of  the  period. 

The  new  law  attracted  attention  immediately  both  in  New 
Jersey  and  in  England.  The  governor  wrote  to  the  Board 
of  Trade  that  it  would  be  "  more  advantageous  to  the 
Queen's  service  and  the  good  of  the  country"  than  the  old 
method ; 2  and  three  of  the  proprietors  in  England  also  memo 
rialized  the  Board,  protesting  against  the  high  requirements 
of  Cornbury's  instructions  and  asking  that  all  freeholders 
might  have  a  share  in  elections.3  The  Board  admitted  two 
of  these  petitioners  personally  to  its  meetings,  and  upon  their 
advice  sent  to  the  queen  the  draft  of  new  instructions  for 
the  governor.4  On  May  3,  1705,  the  new  instruction  was 
approved  by  the  queen  in  council.5  It  was  a  virtual  com 
promise  of  the  suffrage  question.  The  desire  of  the  more 
popular  party  that  all  freeholders  should  be  permitted  to  vote 
was  not  granted,  but  the  governor's  proposal  that  personal 
property  be  accepted  in  lieu  of  land  was  incorporated,  and 
the  clause  was  so  worded  that  any  freeholder  could  vote  who 
had 

"  100  Acres  of  Land  of  an  Estate  of  Freehold  in  his  own  right  within 
the  County  for  which  he  shall  so  Vote,  or  a  personal  Estate  in  Money, 
Goods  and  Chattels  to  the  Value  of  £50  Sterling." 

1  See  Archives,  III,  17,  84,  86-95 ;   126;  MS.  Board  of  Trade  Journals, 
April  13,  1705,  Vol.  17,  357-8;    November  20,  1705,  Vol.  18,  108,  no, 
114-5,  120;   Learning  and  Spicer,  657-660;  N.  J.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.  V,  50. 

The  act  was  subsequently  disallowed  by  the  queen ;  see  Bradford's 
Laws  (edition  of  1732),  7. 

2  Archives,  III,  71. 

3  Ibid.,  84. 

4  MS.  Board  of  Trade  Journals,  April  13  and  16,  1705,  Vol.  17,  357-8. 

5  Archives,  III,  96-98. 


The  Suffrage  in  New  Jersey.  253 

It  further  gave  the  suffrage  to  the  inhabiting  householders 
of  Salem,  Burlington,  and  Perth  Amboy,  and  changed  the 
method  of  election  of  the  assemblymen  from  the  general 
ticket  plan  to  a  local  election  of  two  representatives  for  each 
county  and  two  from  each  of  the  three  towns. 

But  while  the  authorities  in  England  were  determining 
upon  revising  Cornbury's  instructions  and  admitting  smaller 
freeholders  to  the  suffrage,  action  in  opposition  to  the  new 
law  was  taken  by  the  West  Jersey  proprietors.  On  April  16, 
1705,  some  of  the  English  proprietors  had  spoken  to  the 
Board  of  Trade  in  favor  of  the  new  provisions,  but  on  the 
succeeding  day  a  protest  was  signed  by  nineteen  of  the  pro 
prietors  of  West  Jersey  against  any  extension  of  popular 
powers.  These  proprietors  had  been  largely  responsible  for 
the  clause  in  Cornbury's  instructions  which  had  required 
such  large  amounts  of  freehold  for  voting  and  holding  seats 
in  the  assembly,1  and  undoubtedly  the  restriction  would  work 
in  their  interest.  It  was  but  natural,  therefore,  that  they 
should  object  to  a  change  in  qualifications  which  would 
throw  open  these  political  privileges  to  irresponsible  inhabi 
tants.  In  their  protest  they  give  most  explicit  expression  of 
their  theories  of  government. 

The  proprietors  urged  2  that  the  governor  and  assembly 
had  no  right  to  alter  the  qualifications  established  by  the  gov 
ernor's  instructions,  but  that  these  provisions  were  to  be  a 
"  standing  and  unalterable"  part  of  the  constitution.  They 
were,  furthermore,  perfectly  in  accord  with  the  constitution 
of  England,  "  where  the  electors  of  the  knights  of  shires 
must  have  a  certain  fixed  freehold,  and  the  elected  are  gen 
erally  the  principal  landed  men  of  their  respective  county's." 
The  new  broad  suffrage  qualifications,  too,  were  inexpe 
dient,  "  for  certainly  those  persons  are  fittest  to  be  trusted 
with  choosing  and  being  legislators,  who  have  a  fixed  val 
uable  and  permanent  interest  in  lands,  and  must  stand  and 
fall  with  their  country."  "  But  money  is  an  uncertain  inter- 

1  It  has  already  been  noted  that  the  qualifications  set  down  in  Corn 
bury's  instructions  were  copied  from  the  suggestions  of  the  proprietors 
at  the  time  of  surrender.  See  also  N.  7.  Archives,  III,  139. 

3  Learning  and  Spicer,  657-660 :  N.  J.  Archives,  III,  86-95.  There  are 
important  differences  between  these  two  copies  of  the  protest. 


254     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

est,  and  if  it  be  admitted  a  qualification  equal  to  land,  an 
Assembly  may  be  packed  of  strangers  and  beggars,  who  will 
have  little  regard  to  the  good  of  the  country,  from  whence 
they  can  remove  at  pleasure,  and  may  oppress  the  landed 
men  with  heavy  taxes."  And  finally,  the  protest  expresses 
the  alarms  of  the  proprietors  that  the  "  Alteration  now  made 
was  intended  to  put  the  election  of  Representatives  into  the 
meanest  of  the  people  who  being  impatient  of  any  Superirs» 
will  never  fail  to  choose  such  from  amongst  themselves  as 
may  oppose  us,  and  destroy  our  Rights." 

Although  this  paper  is  dated  the  I7th  of  April,  1705,  it 
was  not  received  by  the  Board  of  Trade  until  the  following 
September,1  the  delay  being  caused,  perhaps,  by  the  difficulty 
of  obtaining  signatures  to  the  petition,  for  the  proprietors 
were  scattered  through  England  and  Scotland.  The  delay 
was  costly  to  the  proprietors,  and  in  May  the  queen  sent  the 
new  instruction  to  Cornbury,  permitting  him  to  extend  the 
suffrage  to  all  freeholders  who  possessed  either  one  hundred 
acres  of  land  or  fifty  pounds  personal  estate.  In  November, 
1705,  the  subject  again  came  up  for  consideration  in  the 
Board  of  Trade,  and  that  indefatigable  colonial  agitator, 
Colonel  Quarry,  was  asked  for  his  advice.2  Others  of  the 
proprietors  were  called  in,3  and  in  the  following  February, 
1705-6,  the  Board  wrote  to  Cornbury  that  they  had  no 
objections  to  the  bill  passed  in  November,  1704,  except  that 
it  did  not  state  the  quantity  of  acres  necessary  to  qualify 
electors  and  elected,4  and  they  refer  him  to  the  new  instruc 
tion  recently  sent  to  him  for  guidance. 

After  much  more  correspondence  upon  the  subject,  the 
tenor  of  the  instructions  was  at  last  carried  out  by  a  la\v\ 
passed  at  a  session  of  the  legislature  in  the  spring^of  1709, 
during  Governor  Lovelace's  short  administration./  This  act 
gave  definite  legal  form  to  the  additional  instruction  sent  to 
Governor  Cornbury  in  May,  1705.  It  provided  that  electors 
in  the  counties  and  members  of  the  assembly  should  be  free 
holders;  electors  possessing  at  least  one  hundred  acres  of 

1  N.  J.  Archives,  III,  86. 

2  MS.  Board  of  Trade  Journals,  November  20,  1705,  Vol.  18,  108. 

3  Ibid.,  no,  114-5,  120. 

4  N.  J.  Archives,  III,  126. 


The  Suffrage  in  New  Jersey.  255 

land  or  fifty  pounds  value  of  personal  and  real  estate;  and 
assemblymen  one  thousand  acres  of  land  or  five  hundred 
pounds  value  in  lands  and  personal  property.1  This  law 
referred  only  to  voters  in  the  counties,  and  did  not  mention 
the  qualifications  for  town  residents ;  but  in  the  instructions 
to  the  governors  down  to  and  including  Governor  Franklin, 
in  1762,  the  town  suffrage  is  extended  to  "  inhabitants  house 
holders."/.'  No  further  change  in  the  suffrage  for  the  provin 
cial  asserhbly  was  made  from  1709  down  to  the  Revolution. 
Householders  in  the  two  towns  of  Perth  Amboy  and  Bur 
lington  2  and  freeholders  in  the  counties  as  stated  above 
exercised  the  suffrage  privilege.  The  qualifications  were  un 
doubtedly  liberal  in  1709,  but  as  the  population  of  the  prov 
ince  became  more  dense  and  a  non-landholding  class  arose, 
political  theories  changed  also.  One  of  the  first  results  of 
the  revolutionary  spirit  was  the  demand  for  the  extension  of 
the  suffrage,3  and  it  was  not  long  before  this  was  accom 
plished. 

As  one  passes  from  the  view  of  the  provincial  organization 
to  the  study  of  local  government,  an  extension  of  the  suffrage 
is  noticeable.  Thus,  in  Massachusetts  and  Connecticut  the 
suffrage  was  much  broader  in  town  elections  than  in  the 
colonial  elections,  and  other  colonies  as  well  as  old  England 
show  the  same  principle.  New  Jersey  was  no  exception  to 
this  practice.  The  earliest  legislation  concerning  town  activ 
ity  placed  the  control  of  local  affairs  in  the  hands  of  the 
freeholders,  but  after  the  cession  of  the  provinces  to  the 
Crown  a  more  liberal  policy  is  apparent.  An  act  of  1709* 
provided  that  poor  officers  should  be  elected  in  town  meet 
ings;  and  in  1 709-10  5  the  representative  system  of  county 

Bradford's  Laws  (ed.  of  1717),  5. 

2  For  a  number  of  years  Salem  also  had  separate  representation  in  the 
Assembly,  but  by  new  instructions  to  Governor  Burnet  in  1727,  Salem 
lost  its  representatives  and  was  united  with  Salem  county  (AT.  /.  Ar 
chives,  XIV,  336-7). 

3  See  Extracts  from  the  Journal  of  Proceedings  of  the  Provincial  Con 
gress  of  New  Jersey,  Trenton,  May,  June,  and  August,  1775.    Burling 
ton,  Isaac  Collins,  1775.     Reprint  by  Joseph  Sailer,  Woodbury,  N.  J., 

1835 ;  PP-  75,  142,  228. 

4  Bradford's  Laws  (ed.  of  1717),  31. 

8  N.  J.  Archives,  XIII,  398,  note ;    Bradford's  Laws,  17. 


256     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

government  was  established,  but  changed  somewhat  in  1714. 
By  the  last  act  "  the  Inhabitants  of  each  Town  and  Precinct" 
within  each  county  were  to  elect  annually  two  "  Freehold 
ers,"  and  these  "  chosen  Freeholders"  should  meet  with  the 
justices  to  fix  a  county  tax  rate  and  appoint  certain  officers.1 
The  term  "  inhabitant"  here  used  occurs  almost  continuously 
from  this  time  in  the  laws  relating  to  local  suffrage,  although 
usually  combined  with  the  word  "  freeholder,"  the  phrase 
"  freeholders  and  inhabitants"  being  the  most  common  form 
down  to  the  Revolution.2 

This  phrase  is  not  one  peculiar  to  New  Jersey,  for  it  runs 
throughout  a  century  of  New  York  legislation,  and  in  that 
province,  it  is  believed,  was  applied  only  to  inhabiting  free 
holders?  Such  was  not  the  interpretation,  however,  which 
was  placed  upon  it  in  New  Jersey.  We  have  already  seen 
that  the  governor's  instructions  granted  the  provincial  suf 
frage  to  householders  in  three  towns,  and  that  the  act  of 
1714,  while  giving  local  suffrage  to  "  inhabitants,"  directed 
that  the  elected  should  be  "  freeholders."  An  act  of  1717 
expressly  stated  that  the  electors  should  be  "  freeholders  and 
inhabitants,  householders,"  and  thereby  accepted  the  English 
legal  meaning  of  the  word  "  inhabitants"  as  one  who  holds 
a  house.  That  there  were  two  forms  of  suffrage  is  also 
recognized  by  the  assembly  in  laws  relating  to  the  important 
matter  of  the  location  of  the  county  seats  in  new  counties,4 
providing  that  the  decision  of  this  question  should  be  left  to 
those  who  were  qualified  to  vote  for  representatives.  But 
apart  from  these  several  instances,  the  word  inhabitant,5  or 
the  phrase  freeholder  and  inhabitant,  is  always  used.6 

It  is  quite  possible,  indeed,  that  the  actual  suffrage  was  not 

1  Bradford's  Laws,  7. 

*  Ibid.  (1717),  61,  66,  acts  of  January,  1716-17;    Nevill's  Laws,  I,  420, 
act  of  1749;   Nevill's  Laws,  II,  345,  act  of  1760. 

3  See  chapter  on  New  York. 

*  County   of   Cumberland,    1747,   Nevill's   Laws,   I,   361 ;     County  of 
Sussex,  1753,  Nevill's  Laws,  II,  20. 

5  See  Nevill's  Laws,  II,  19. 

9  By  the  city  charters  of  Burlington  and  Trenton,  householders  were 
permitted  to  vote  in  city  affairs ;  N.  /.  Hist.  Soc.  Proc.,  Sec.  Series,  IX, 
158. 


The  Suffrage  in  New  Jersey.  257 

always  limited  even  to  householders,  but  that  still  less  re 
sponsible  persons  occasionally  voted  in  town  elections.  This 
must  have  been  the  case,  else  there  would  have  been  no  reason 
for  the  law  passed  in  1766,  which  carefully  defined  the  term 
"  inhabitant."  *  This  act,  which  must  serve  as  our  strongest 
clue  to  the  local  suffrage  qualifications  before  the  Revolution, 
expressed  in  clear  terms  the  meaning  of  the  word.  It  was 
passed  "  for  the  better  ascertaining  what  Persons  Shall  have 
a  Right  to  vote  at  Town-meetings,  and  the  Elections  of  the 
Township  and  Precinct  Officers,"  and  it  prescribed 

"  that  no  Person  or  Persons,  except  in  Towns  corporate,  shall  have 
the  Privilege  to  give  his  or  their  Voice  or  Vote  at  any  Town  meeting 
.  .  .  unless  the  Person  offering  such  Vote  is  a  Freeholder,  a  Tenant 
for  Years,  or  Householder  &  Resident,  in  such  Township  or  Precinct ; 
and  all  Powers  given  to  the  Inhabitants  of  this  Colony  at  their  said 
Meetings  by  any  Act  or  Acts  of  the  General  Assembly  of  this  Colony 
shall  be  understood  to  extend  only  to  the  Freeholders,  Tenants  for 
Years,  or  Householders,  being  Residents  in  such  Township  or  Precinct, 
and  no  others ;  any  Law,  Custom  or  Usage  to  the  contrary  thereof  in 
anywise  notwithstanding." 

It  thus  appears  certain  that  non-freeholders  voted  and  had 
the  right  to  vote  in  local  elections  in  the  colonial  period ;  and 
that  throughout  the  whole  period  of  royal  government  the 
householders  of  two  towns  (for  a  time  also  those  of  a  third) 
had  the  right  to  a  share  in  electing  the  provincial  representa 
tives  from  those  towns.  The  usual  statement,  therefore,  that 
the  suffrage  in  New  Jersey  was  limited  to  freeholders  must 
be  qualified  in  large  measure  by  the  admission  of  household 
ers  in  certain  towns  for  the  provincial  suffrage,  and  house 
holders  throughout  the  whole  colony  in  local  elections.  We 
have  seen  that  from  the  first  years  of  the  royal  administration 
an  effort  was  made  to  extend  the  suffrage  to  non- freeholders. 
This  movement  was  unsuccessful  so  far  as  the  assembly 
suffrage  was  concerned,  but  the  advice  of  the  governors  and 
the  public  agitation  led  to  the  cutting  down  of  the  freehold 

1  Act  of  June  28,  1/66,  "  An  Act  explaining  the  Right  of  voting  at 
Town-Meetings,  and  the  Elections  of  Township  Officers ;"  Allinson's 
Laws,  287. 

17 


258     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

qualification  to  the  lowest  degree;  for  if  a  man  possessed 
any  amount,  however  small,  of  land  in  freehold  he  could 
vote  for  representatives,  if  he  also  owned  fifty  pounds  per 
sonal  property.  The  local  suffrage  was  still  wider ;  all  free 
holders,  of  whatever  size  holding,  could  vote ;  and  the  same 
privilege  was  open  also  to  all  resident  householders.  By 
these  provisions  the  suffrage  in  New  Jersey  was  placed  on 
a  broader  basis  than  in  the  neighboring  colony  of  New  York ; 
while,  on  the  other  hand,  it  was  not  so  liberal  as  in  Pennsyl- 


1  The  Pennsylvania  qualification  was  fifty  acres  of  land,  of  which 
twelve  were  cleared,  or  fifty  pounds  personal  estate,  Statutes  at  Large, 
II,  212-221,  Act  of  January  12,  1705-6.  But  in  certain  local  matters 
only  freeholders  could  vote,  Statutes  at  Large,  IV,  116,  Act  of  May  10, 
1729,  and  Pamphlet  Laws,  112,  Act  of  1771,  March  9. 


CHAPTER    IX. 
THE  SUFFRAGE  IN  DELAWARE. 

A  noteworthy  fact  which  becomes  apparent  in  a  study  of 
the  suffrage  in  the  middle  colonies  is  the  weakness  or  total 
absence  of  popular  government  in  those  colonies  which  were 
founded  by  the  Dutch  and  Swedes,  and  in  its  early  develop 
ment  within  the  English  colonies,  both  northern  and  south 
ern.  That  wide  territory  which  later  included  the  colonies 
of  New  York,"  New"  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  and  Defaware, 
has  few  facts  to  give  to  the  student  of  popular  political  insti 
tutions  until  after  its  conquest  by  the  English.  During  the 
fifty  years  of  occupation  of  the  Hudson  Valley  and  the  forty 
years  of  settlement  on  the  Delaware  there  is  not  as  much 
political  activity  as  is  to  be  seen  in  the  first  few  years  of 
one  of  the  spontaneous  political  organizations  of  English 
men.  In  the  insignificant  settlements  of  Maine,  in  the  New 
Hampshire  towns,  among  the  one  hundred  Englishmen  at 
Plymouth,  in  the  towns  of  Rhode  Island,  Connecticut,  New 
Haven,  and  on  Long  Island,  political  organizations  appear 
as  surely  as  the  English  names  and  features. 

The  search  for  the  conditions  of  the  suffrage  in  the  early 
years  of  the  middle  colonies  is,  therefore,  largely  a  search 
for  those  occasional  and  irregular  elections  through  which 
the  will  of  the  people  may  have  been  expressed.  And  yet 
this  search  is  not  altogether  a  waste  of  time,  for,  if  it  does 
no  more,  it  will  aid  in  an  appreciation  of  those  regular  politi 
cal  forms  which  were  later  introduced  by  the  English.1 

The  Dutch  were  the  first  to  settle  on  the  Delaware  River, 
where  before  1650  they  had  established  three  forts.  The 
fort  at  Swaanendael,  near  Cape  Henlopen,  however,  was  de- 

1  It  is  not  intended  to  draw  the  inference  that  there  is  nothing  of  value 
in  the  early  settlements  on  the  Hudson  and  the  Delaware.  There  are, 
of  course,  many  important  social,  economic  or  personal  facts  in  connec 
tion  with  these  settlements,  but  for  the  constitutional  historian  there  is 
often  little  to  describe  beyond  an  arbitrary  military  government. 

259 


260     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

stroyed  by  the  Indians  in  1631 ;  Fort  Beversrede  was  an 
insignificant  trading  station  within  the  present  limits  of 
Philadelphia,  perhaps  erected  in  1633;  and  the  third  one 
near  the  present  Gloucester,  New  Jersey,  was  occupied  from 
1623  to  1651.  After  the  latter  date  the  Dutch  destroyed 
Fort  Nassau  in  New  Jersey,  and,  moving  to  the  west  bank 
of  the  river,  built  Fort  Casimir,  near  the  present  Newcastle, 
Delaware,  and  within  menacing  distance  of  the  Swedish  Fort 
Christina.  In  these  early  attempts  at  Dutch  occupation  the 
government  appears  purely  military,  and  the  forts  served 
to  protect  the  few  settlers  around  them  and  also  to  furnish 
a  post  for  the  Indian  trade.  As  late  as  1648  Fort  Beversrede 
on  the  Schuylkill  had,  owing  to  the  encroachments  of  the 
Swedes,  scarcely  land  enough  for  a  "  little  garden,"  l  and 
their  trade  was  similarly  hampered  by  the  Swedes.  Until 
the  Dutch  conquest  of  the  lands  on  the  South  River  it  is 
impossible  to  find  any  political  organization  among  the 
Dutchmen  on  the  Delaware. 

A  similar  conclusion  will  be  reached  regarding  the  Eng 
lish  settlements.  Some  New  Haven  men  doubtless  came  to 
the  Delaware  and  perhaps  occupied  land  in  what  is  now 
Philadelphia ; 2  but  their  occupation  was  of  short  duration. 
So,  too,  the  county  palatine  of  Sir  Edmund  Plowden,  in 
cluding  the  Delaware  lands,  was  never  organized  by  its  pro 
prietor.3 

Turning  from  the  Dutch  and  the  English,  therefore,  we 
may  examine  the  political  conditions  in  the  Swedish  settle 
ments.  With  the  intrigues  for  the  formation  of  the  Swedish 
South  Company  we  are  not  here  concerned,4  but  its  charter, 
granted  in  1626,  shows  a  typical  seventeenth  century  trading 
company,5  with  no  recognition  of  the  political  rights  of  the 

1  Pa.  Archives,  Second  Series,  VII,  467. 

~  1641-2 ;  Hazard,  Annals,  59-64 ;  Pa.  Archives,  Sec.  Series,  VII,  462  ; 
Brodhead,  Hist,  of  N.  Y.,  I,  322;  Scharf  and  Westcott,  History  of 
Philadelphia,  I,  67. 

'Hazard,  Historical  Collections,  I,  160-174;  Hazard,  Annals,  36-39, 
108-112. 

4  See  Jameson,  William  Usselinx. 

5  Jameson,   Usselinx,   114-117:    Hazard,  Annals,   16-20;    N.    Y.  Col. 
Doc.,  XII,  7-15- 


The  Suffrage  in  Delaivare.  261 

colonists.  An  extension  of  time  was  granted  to  this  com 
pany  in  1633,*  and  in  1638  some  Swedish  settlers  arrived 
on  the  South  River  and  settled  within  the  present  limits  of 
Wilmington,  Delaware.  The  early  organization  of  these 
Swedes  is  not  clearly  shown  in  the  few  existing  documents 
of  this  period,  but  the  control  of  affairs  in  the  colony  was 
apparently  vested  solely  in  a  governor.  By  1642  two  such 
governors  had  been  displaced  and  a  third  appointed.2  The 
instructions  and  commission  of  the  latter,  John  Printz,  do 
not  show  any  formal  sharing  of  authority  between  the  gov 
ernor  and  the  people,  although  the  governor  is  cautioned  to 
conduct  himself  so  that  he  may  be  able  to  answer  for  it 
before  God,  the  Queen,  "  and  every  brave  Swede."  3  Down 
to  the  close  of  the  Swedish  rule  there  is  apparently  no  change 
from  the  arbitrary  rule  of  the  company's  governors,  and  no 
participation  on  the  part  of  the  settlers  in  the  government  of 
the  colony. 

In  September,  1655,  Governor  Stuyvesant,  from  New 
Amsterdam,  entered  the  South  River  with  a  force  of  seven 
hundred  men,  a  greater  number,  perhaps,  than  the  entire 
Swedish  population  on  the  river.  By  the  terms  of  the  capitu 
lation,  which  followed  as  a  matter  of  course  upon  this  mili 
tary  display,  those  Swedes  desiring  to  remain  and  taking 
an  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  Dutch  government  were  to  be 
guaranteed  their  lives,  property,  and  their  religion.4  A  vice- 
director  was  appointed  by  Stuyvesant  to  take  charge  of  the 
Delaware  settlements,  receiving  power  to  "  keep  order,  do 
justice,  and  administer  it  either  in  civil  or  military  cases;" 
but  he  should  be  assisted  by  a  council  composed  of  two  named 
persons,  and  two  sergeants  in  the  trial  of  military  offences, 
or  "  two  most  suitable  freemen"  in  civil  cases.5 

Under  the  Dutch  rule  there  are  indications  of  occasional 


1  Hazard,  30,  34;    Jameson,  Usselinx,  161. 
~  Ibid.,  Annals,  57,  59,  62. 

3  Ibid.,  63;    Hazard,  Register  of  Penna.,  IV,  200. 

4  Ibid.,   Annals,    185-190;    Pa.   Archives,   Sec.    Series,   VII,   483-487; 
N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  I,  607-8;  XII,  102-106. 

5  Hazard,  205-206 ;    Pa.  Archives,  Sec.  Series,  VII,  400-493 ;    N.   Y. 
Col.  Doc..  XII,  113. 


262     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

popular  participation  in  the  colony's  affairs.  Thus,  as  early 
as  1656  a  local  court  was  established  for  the  Swedes,  com 
posed  of  a  sheriff  (schout)  and  commissaries,1  and  evidently 
modelled  after  similar  courts  erected  in  the  Dutch  towns  of 
New  Netherland.2  These  officials  were  chosen  by  Stuyve- 
sant,  but  there  appears  to  have  been  some  popular  action 
concerning  the  selection.3  The  -friendly  attitude  of  Stuyve- 
sant  towards  the  Swedes  did  not  meet  with  the  approval  of 
the  West  India  Company,  and  in  1661,  after  about  five  years 
had  passed,  the  Swedish  sheriff  was  discharged.4 

In  the  meantime  the  Dutch  vice-director  and  his  council 
lors  had  been  holding  court  at  Fort  Casimir,  directing  mili 
tary  affairs,  deciding  civil  and  criminal  cases,  and  occasion 
ally  calling  in  the  inhabitants  to  give  assistance.5  On 
November  8,  1656,  the  "  whole  community"  appeared,  and 
selected  four  persons  from  whom  the  vice-director  later  chose 
two  proper  persons  as  inspectors  of  tobacco.  After  this  elec 
tion  the  fencing  of  their  lands  was  advised  by  the  vice- 
director,  and  the  community  proceeded  to  elect  two  persons 
to  serve  as  overseers  and  surveyors  of  fences.  Later,  the 
building  of  a  bridge  and  the  cutting  of  palisades  for  the  fort 

1N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  XII,  151.  This  court  met  at  Tinicum  Island  (ibid. 
159),  and  its  jurisdiction  was  recognized  by  the  vice-director's  court  at 
Fort  Casimir. 

*  Amer.  Hist.  Rev.,  VI,  6-9;  Pa.  Archives,  Sec.  Series,  VII,  531-2. 
Military  officers  were  also  appointed  among  the  Swedes.  The  West 
India  Company  thought  this  dangerous,  but  Stuyvesant  wrote,  "  We  have 
thought  the  most  suitable  [form  of  government]  would  be  a  lenient 
method  of  governing  them  and  proceeding  with  them,  to  win  their  hearts 
and  divert  their  thoughts  from  a  hard  and  tyrannical  form  of  govern 
ment,  and  considering  this  we  granted  to  the  Swedish  nation,  at  their  re 
quest,  some  officers,  that  in  time  of  necessity,  against  the  savages  and 
other  enemies,  in  case  of  defence,  they  might  keep  order,  but  we  gave 
them  no  written  document  or  commission,  much  less  were  any  arms  dis 
tributed  among  them;"  Pa.  Arch.,  Sec.  Series,  VII,  571. 

'Compare  Pa.  Arch.,  Sec.  Series,  VII,  511,  with  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  XII, 

151- 

4  AT.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  XII,  233,  271,  338,  345;    Pa.  Archives,  Sec.  Series, 
VII,  555- 

5  See  Minutes  of  Administration  of  Jean   Paul  Jacquet,  N.   Y.   Col. 
Doc.,  XII,  133-162. 


The  Suffrage  in  Delaware.  263 

were  agreed  upon.1  A  similar  meeting  was  held  about  two 
months  later,  on  January  10,  1657,  at  which  the  attention 
of  the  inhabitants  was  drawn  to  the  high  prices  which  some 
traders  had  been  giving  to  the  Indians  for  skins ;  and  after 
wards  the  community  set  a  fixed  price  in  wampum  upon  furs, 
and  agreed  mutually  not  to  give  more  than  this  amount; 
and  those  violating  the  promise  were  to  be  considered  per 
jurers.2  In  these  two  meetings  the  people  took  a  part  in 
election  and  in  legislation  in  a  way  which  does  not  differ 
materially  from  the  New  England  town  meeting,  except 
that  the  meetings  were  called  at  irregular  intervals,  records 
of  these  two  meetings  alone  remaining,  and  they  did  not, 
consequently,  form  an  integral  part  of  the  local  govern 
ment.3 

Another  change  in  the  control  of  the  Delaware  settlements 
was  under  consideration  \vhile  these  events  were  happening. 
In  December,  1656,  the  Directors  of  the  Dutch  West  India 
Company  informed  Stuyvesant  that  the  company  had  ceded 
Fort  Casimir,  thereafter  to  be  called  New  Amstel,  and  the 
land  below  it  to  the  mouth  of  the  river  to  the  city  of  Amster 
dam,  and  that  the  city  would  soon  take  steps  to  enlarge  the 
colony  and  send' over  a  director  to  govern  it.4  To  encourage 
emigration  to  the  new  colony,  the  city  published  a  set  of  con 
ditions  under  which  settlers  could  enter  the  colony.5  In 
addition  to  many  economic  inducements,  these  conditions 
also  promised  very  favorable  political  privileges;  there 
should  be  a  "  schout"  or  "  head  of  justice"  appointed  by  the 
director  at  New  Amsterdam,  three  burgomasters  appointed 

1  N.  Y.  Col  Doc.,  XII,  154-5- 

2  Ibid.,  157. 

3  The  government  of  the  Company's  colony  at  Altona  (Wilmington) 
was  mainly  under  the  control  of  the  vice-director.     On  April  28,  1660, 
an  inhabitant  came  before  this  officer  and  said,  "  that  we  ought  to  make 
new  Commissaries  every  year,  pursuant  to  the  custom  of  Holland ;"  he 
inquired  "  whether  he  and  other  freemen  were  to  be  treated  forever  as 
boys,"  and  declared  "  that  they  should  not  always  be  ruled  by  such 
clowns,"  etc.     (N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  XII,  308.) 

*N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  XII,  131-33- 

5  Laws  of  New  Netherlands,  239-248,  269-288 ;  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  I,  630- 
636;  Hazard,  Annals,  220  ff. 


264     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

by  the  common  burghers  from  among  the  "  honestest,  fittest 
and  richest,"  and  five  or  seven  schepens  (magistrates)  se 
lected  by  the  director  from  a  double  number  nominated  by 
the  "  body  of  the  burghers."  l  After  the  colony  numbered 
two  hundred  families,  it  was  to  elect  a  common  council,  and 
the  popular  elections  were  to  give  place  to  a  close  corpora 
tion. 

The  officers  were  chosen  by  the  people  for  the  first  time 
in  i657,2  and  subsequently  there  must  have  been  other  elec 
tions,  for  in  June,  1660,  we  learn  of  a  meeting  of  the  "  com 
munity,"  and  an  election  of  commissaries;3  and  in  1664, 
at  the  surrender  of  the  New  Amstel  authorities  to  the  Eng 
lish,  a  number  of  "  burgomasters"  signed  the  articles  of 
capitulation  for  themselves  and  "  all  the  Dutch  and  Swedes 
inhabiting  in  Delaware  Bay  and  Delaware  River." 4  But 
promises  of  free  land,  free  seed  corn,  exemption  from  taxes, 
and  the  grant  of  political  power  did  not  make  the  New 
Amstel  colony  a  success.  The  colonists  deserted  and  went 
to  neighboring  English  settlements,  and  the  city  was  un 
able  to  get  any  return  for  its  invested  capital.5  Conflicts 
of  authority  also  occurred  between  the  representatives  of  the 
city  of  Amsterdam  and  those  of  the  West  India  Company ; G 
and  in  addition  to  these  internal  difficulties,  the  English  in 
Maryland  claimed  the  whole  territory  and  threatened  to  use 
force  against  the  occupants.7 

Further  inducements  to  settlers  were  offered  by  the  city 
in  1 66 1  and  1663  by  throwing  open  the  trade  with  the 
colony  to  all  persons,  by  promising  independence  of  the  New 
Amsterdam  authorities,  and  by  giving  greater  freedom  in 
local  affairs.8  This  policy  of  local  independence  did  not  con 
form  to  Stuyvesant's  ideas  of  government.  He  thought  it 

1  One  election  is  noted  by  Hazard,  Annals,  239 ;   N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  XII, 
319. 

2  Hazard,  Annals,  239. 

3  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  XII,  319. 

*  Pa.  Archives,  Sec.  Series,  V,  544. 

'AT.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  II,  202;   XII,  271,  408. 

*  Ibid.,  XII,  197-199,  232-4,  287,  314,  326,  408,  etc. 
7  Ibid.,  261. 

*  Ibid.,  II,  173-1/5:    Laws  of  New  Netherlands.  388,  447. 


The  Suffrage  in  Delaware.  265 

would  encourage  the  officials  in  the  city's  colony  in  their 
past  usurpations  of  authority;  further,  it  would  lead  the 
other  villages  and  colonies  to  demand  like  privilege,  and, 
under  the  early  exemptions,  these  could  not  be  denied,  for 
each  colony  was  to  possess  as  great  privileges  as  any  single 
one  obtained.1 

Shortly  after  this  the  West  India  Company  transferred  to 
the  city  of  Amsterdam  all  its  possessions  on  the  South  River, 
and  in  October,  1663,  Stuyvesant  at  New  Amsterdam  signed 
the  deed  of  cession.2  The  English  conquest  of  1664  pre 
vented  a  further  development  of  the  city's  schemes  of  coloni 
zation.  Amsterdam,  from  the  first,  had  offered  greater 
inducements  to  settlers  than  those  advertised  by  the  West 
India  Company.  The  colony  was  treated  as  a  business 
venture,  for  the  success  of  which  all  means  must  be  used. 
In  addition  to  granting  religious  liberty,  trade  privileges,  and 
free  land,  a  further  promise  of  political  privileges  was  made ; 
and  as  the  failure  of  the  colony  became  apparent,  the  con 
cessions  to  settlers  were  made  more  extensive.  But  neither 
a  commercial  company  nor  a  single  city  could  secure  the 
colony  against  foreign  attack,  and  the  States-General  of  the 
Netherlands  would  not  give  the  necessary  protection. 

After  New  Amsterdam  had  surrendered  to  the  English 
in  1664,  Sir  Robert  Carre  was  sent  to  the  Delaware  to  re 
duce  the  Dutch  settlements  on  that  river.  The  terms  of 
surrender  were  similar  to  those  granted  to  the  inhabitants 
of  New  Amsterdam  and  the  Hudson  Valley.3  The  Dutch 
and  Swedes  had  their  property  rights  secured  to  them ;  they 
were  permitted  to  leave  the  region  within  six  months,  and 
if  remaining  and  taking  the  oath  of  allegiance,  they  were 
entitled  to  enjoy  commercial  and  religious  liberty,  and  their 
officers  and  magistrates  were  to  "  exercise  their  Customary 
Power  in  Adminis00  of  Justice  wth  in  their  precincts,  for 
Six  Months  or  until  his  Maties  pleasure"  be  known.4 

1 N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  XII,  374. 

2  Ibid.,  II,  199;   XII,  449.    For  reasons  for  this  transfer  see  N.  Y.  Col. 
Doc.,  II,  201 ;  XII,  440-442,  and  Brodhead,  Hist,  of  N.  Y.,  I,  714-716. 

3  Ibid.,  Ill,  71-73;    Pa.  Arch.,  Sec.  Series,  V,  544;    Hazard,  Annals, 

364- 

4  Ibid. 


266     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

For  several  years  after  this  surrender,  a  dual  form  of 
government  existed  within  the  Delaware  settlements;  an 
English  military  commander  with  a  force  of  twenty  soldiers 
possessed  superior  authority  on  the  River ;  but  the  civil  gov 
ernment  in  the  respective  plantations  was  continued,  and 
only  in  cases  of  dispute  was  the  commander  to  call  to  his 
assistance  five  named  inhabitants  to  act  as  councillors.  The 
council,  in  which  the  commander  had  a  double  vote  in  case 
of  a  tie,  could  decide  civil  suits,  give  advice  concerning  the 
Indian  trade,  and  supervise  the  military  protection  of  the 
several  plantations.1  But  the  commander  did  not  often  inter 
fere  with  the  Dutch  officers,  and  as  late  as  1670  and  1671 
we  find  references  to  sellouts  and  commissaries,  who  have 
the  duties  of  the  old  Dutch  officers.2 

In  the  spring  of  1665  Col.  Nicholls  had  issued  his  code  of 
laws  known  as  the  "  Duke's  Laws,"  but  the  operation  of 
these  was  limited  for  a  time  to  Long  Island,  and  they  were 
only  gradually  extended  to  the  Delaware  lands,  where  they 
were  never  fully  in  force.  In  1668  the  first  step  towards  the 
establishment  of  the  laws  was  taken,3  and  in  1671  the  militia 
provisions  of  the  Laws  were  extended  to  the  Delaware.4  The 
following  year,  the  governor  at  New  York,  in  commissioning 
a  justice  of  the  peace  for  the  Delaware  lands,  directed  him  to 
observe  the  laws  established  for  the  Duke's  territories,5  and 
at  last  the  final  step  in  the  establishment  of  English  laws  on 
the  Delaware  came  by  an  order  from  Governor  Andros,  dated 
September  22,  i676.6  It  provided 

"  i.  That  the  booke  of  lawes  Established  by  his  Royall  Highnesse,  and 
practiced  in  New  Yorke,  Long  Island,  and  Dependences  bee  likewise  in 
force,  and  practiced  in  this  River  and  Precincts,  Except  the  Constables 
Courts,  Country  Rates,  and  some  other  things  peculiar  to  Long  Island, 
and  the  Millitia  as  now  Ordered  to  remaine  in  the  King,  but  that  a  Con 
stable  in  each  place  bee  yearely  chosen  for  the  Preservacon  of  his  Matles 
Peace  with  all  other  Power  as  directed  by  the  law." 

*N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  XII,  461-2;    Pa.  Arch.,  Sec.  Series,  VII,  722-3. 
"  Hazard,  Annals,  380,  383. 

3  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  XII,  462. 

4  Ibid.,  487. 
3  Ibid.,  495- 

8  Ibid.,  561-63 ;    Pa.  Archives,  Sec.  Series,  VII,  783-785. 


The  Suffrage  in  Delaware.  267 

The  order  recognized  three  courts,  at  Whorekill,  Newcastle, 
and  Upland,  to  be  composed  of  justices  of  the  peace,  having 
limited  criminal  and  civil  jurisdiction,  and  possessing  the 
power  to  make  by-laws  for  their  respective  territories,  not 
repugnant  to  the  laws  of  the  government.  Taxes  could  not 
be  levied,  except  in  extraordinary  cases,  without  the  consent 
of  the  governor.  A  sheriff  was  to  be  appointed  by  the  gov 
ernor  for  the  whole  Delaware  region. 

The  democratic  features  of  the  laws  as  they  were  put  in 
force  in  Long  Island  were  not  introduced  by  this  order  into 
the  Delaware  settlements.1  There  were  no  town  meetings 
or  constables'  courts,  and  it  is  believed  that  there  were  no 
regular  popular  elections.  The  order  of  Andros  did,  indeed, 
provide  for  the  election  of  constables,  but  these  officials,  as 
well  as  other  local  officers,  were  actually  appointed  by  the 
courts.  The  three  courts  furnish  the  most  distinctive  feature 
of  political  organization  on  the  Delaware  down  to  Penn's 
time,  and  they  gave  a  model  for  the  later  county  government 
of  Pennsylvania  and  Delaware,  Before  the  English  con 
quest,  there  had  been  three  Dutch  local  courts  on  the  Dela 
ware,  one  for  New  Amstel  (Newcastle),2  another  at  Chris 
tina  (later  called  Altona,  now  Wilmington),3  and  the  third 
near  the  mouth  of  the  Schuylkill  on  Tinicum  Island.4  When 
the  city  of  Amsterdam  obtained  control  of  the  entire  Dela 
ware  region  it  is  believed  that  the  separate  court  at  Altona 
was  incorporated  with  that  of  Newcastle,  while  a  rudimen 
tary  form  of  government  was  established  for  certain  new 
plantations  near  the  Cape  called  the  Whorekill  settlement.5 
These  courts  with  their  sellouts  and  commissaries  must 
have  been  the  "  inferiour  Magistrates"  mentioned  in  the 
articles  of  capitulation  in  1664,  and  they  may  have  existed 
continuously  from  that  time  until  the  order  of  September 
22,  1676,  formally  adopted  their  organization  as  the  basis 
of  government  for  the  river,  although  the  occasional  refer- 

1  See  Amer.  Hist.  Rev.,  VI,  718-723. 

2  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  XII,  passim. 
8  Ibid.,  passim. 

4  Ibid.,  211,  310. 

5  Ibid.,  229-230,  450. 


268     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

ences  in  the  records  do  not  furnish  absolute  proof  of  their 
continuous  action.1 

An  inspection  of  the  records  of  two  of  these  courts  furnishes 
no  evidence  of  popular  elections.2  Both  at  Newcastle  and 
at  Upland  the  court  appointed  constables,  overseers  of  high 
ways,  under-sheriffs,  church-wardens,  church-elders,  attor 
neys,  viewers  of  tobacco,  vendu-masters,  and  perhaps  other 
officers.3  The  commissions  of  the  justices  of  the  several 
courts  were  stated  to  run  for  one  year  or  until  superseded, 
but  often  a  new  commission  was  not  issued  until  considerably 
longer  than  a  year.4  The  courts  appear  to  have  been  per 
mitted,  like  the  old  Dutch  courts,  to  nominate  a  list  of  per 
sons  from  whom  the  governor  might  choose  the  new  jus 
tices/'  In  all  this  political  and  administrative  activity  of 
the  local  courts  there  is  nothing  to  remind  one  of  the  town 
meetings  and  popular  elections  which  were  carried  on 
under  the  Duke's  laws  on  Long  Island.6  With  the  pos 
sible  exception  of  the  town  officers  of  Newcastle,7  it  seems 

1  In  1660  we  find  a  record  of  the  Court  at  Tinicum  Island  (N.  Y.  Col. 
Doc.,  XII,  311),  and  in  1672  a  similar  court  was  being  held  on  the  neigh 
boring  mainland  at  Upland   (Chester).     It  is  believed  that  the  latter 
was  a  continuation  of  the  previous  Dutch  court,  with  its  place  of  meet 
ing  changed  between  1660-1672,  from  Tinicum  Island  to  Upland.     In 
1669-70,  January  25,  an  officer  to  preserve  the  peace  was  provided  for 
Whorekill  (N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  XII,  472),  and  in  1672  there  had  been  in 
existence  for  some  time  a  schout  and  commissaries  (Ibid.,  496). 

2  The  records  of  the  court  at  Upland  from  1672  until  Penn's  occupa 
tion  have  been  printed  in  volume  seven  of  the  Memoirs  of  the  Hist. 
Soc.  of  Penna.     A  transcript  of  the  Newcastle  records,  beginning  in 
October,  1676,  and  continuing  until  1681,  has  been  made  from  the  orig 
inals  and  deposited  in  the  Hist.  Soc.  of  Penna.    The  copy  has  been  used 
by  the  writer. 

8  See  Newcastle  Court  Records  (Pa.  Hist.  Soc.  copy),  I,  54,  74,  109, 
136,  145,  163,  217,  285,  302-3,  460;  II,  31,  32,  99,  165-68,  224,  328,  349; 
Upland  Court  Records,  57,  104,  184,  194. 

*  Newcastle  Court  Records,  I,  3-7,  189-193,  250-252,  416-417;  II,  265- 
266 ;  Upland  Court  Records,  37,  165. 

5  Newcastle  Court  Records,  I,  403;  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  XII,  606,  650. 

6  Even  the  popular  election  of  militia  officers  was  apparently  forbidden, 
for  the  militia  was  "  to  remain  in  the  King."     (N.   Y.  Col.  Doc.,  XII, 
56i.) 

7  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  XII,  496. 


The  Suffrage  in  Delaware.  269 

probable  that  no  elections  by  the  people  were  held  on  the 
South  River  under  the  government  of  the  Duke  of  York. 

With  the  cession  of  the  Delaware  lands  to  Penn  the  his 
tory  of  the  lower  settlements  is  for  a  time  overshadowed 
by  that  of  their  more  prosperous  neighbors  in  Pennsyl 
vania.  It  is  probable  that  the  local  government,  both  of 
Delaware  and  Pennsylvania,  was  largely  influenced  by  the 
previous  powers  of  the  three  courts  on  the  Delaware,  for 
Penn's  frames  and  laws,  while  singularly  explicit  regarding 
a  general  representative  system,  were  almost  silent  upon 
the  subject  of  local  government,  and  it  is  quite  likely,  al 
though  perhaps  not  demonstrable,  that  he  drew  upon  the 
existing  forms  for  his  county  government.1 

It  is  not  necessary  here  to  review  the  various  suffrage 
provisions  of  the  Pennsylvania  legislation  from  1682  to 
1702,  for  the  province  and  the  territories  were  under  the 
same  government  during  this  time.  But  jealousies  between 
the  two  sections  soon  arose,  and  in  1699  some  of  the  lower 
counties  refused  to  elect  representatives ;  and  during  Penn's 
second  visit  the  conflict  of  interests  continued,  until  in  the 
charter  of  privileges  of  1701  he  inserted  a  provision  per 
mitting  the  legislative  separation  of  the  province  and  terri 
tories.  Renewed  contests  between  the  two  sections  took 
place  after  the  proprietor's  departure  for  England,  and  in 
1702  the  lower  counties,  as  in  1699,  neglected  to  elect  rep 
resentatives  under  the  charter  of  I7OI.2  This  was  taken 
by  the  Pennsylvania  delegates  to  mean  a  separation,  and 
when  in  1704  the  three  counties  again  asked  for  representa 
tion  they  were  refused  admission  to  the  Pennsylvania  as 
sembly.3  From  this  time,  therefore,  may  be  dated  the  legis 
lative  separation  of  the  "  Three  Lower  Counties"  from  the 
province. 

1  The  records  during  the  Duke  of  York's  control  at  first  speak  of  the 
three  "  courts/'  avoiding  the  word  county,  even  going  so  far  as  to  de 
scribe  the  physical  bounds  of  the  courts;  but  the  word  county  came 
in,  either  accidentally  or  intentionally,  about  1679  or  1680.  (Newcastle 
Court  Records,  II,  129-130,  188,  199-202;  Upland  Court  Records,  165.) 

~  Votes  of  Assembly  of  Penna.,  I,  I,  Appendix,  xiv-xxv ;  Col.  Rec.  of 
Pa.,  II,  72-84,  128-140. 

3  Ibid.,  I,  II.  4. 


J 


J 


270     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

Access  to  the  early  laws  of  Delaware  has  not  been  had. 
and  the  first  election  law  examined  is  that  of  7  George  II. 
(I734).1  This  act,  entitled  "An  Act  for  regulating  Elec 
tions,  and  ascertaining  the  Number  of  the  Members  of 
Assembly,"  was  passed,  as  its  preamble  states,  because  the 
existing  election  laws  were  "  uncertain  and  deficient."  It 
provided  for  an  annual  assembly  composed  of  at  least  six 
persons  from  each  county,  and  stated  the  qualifications  of 
electors  and  elected  in  similar  form  to  those  of  Pennsyl 
vania.  /A  voter  must  be  ( i )  a  natural  born  subject  of  Great 
Britain,  or  have  been  naturalized  in  England,  in  this  prov 
ince,  or  in  Pennsylvania;  (2)  of  the  male  sex;  (3)  of 
twenty-one  years  of  age;  (4)  be  a  freeholder  within  this 
government  holding  fifty  acres  of  land,  with  twelve  acres 
cleared  and  improved,  or  be  otherwise  worth  forty  pounds 
lawful  money;  (5)  a  resident  for  the  term  of  two  years. t 
The  law  imposed  a  fine  of  five  pounds  upon  persons  voting 
without  proper  qualification,  and  a  fine  of  twenty  shillings 
upon  those  neglecting  to  vote  when  possessing  the  qualifi 
cations,  unless  detained  by  sickness  or  other  unavoidable 
accident.  Giving  or  receiving  bribes  were  punishable  by 
a  fine  of  five  pounds,  as  was  also  the  offering  to  serve  for 
nothing  or  less  than  the  legal  allowance  of  representatives.2 
The  act  required  the  use  of  paper  ballots  except  in  the  case 
of  illiterate  persons,  who  were  permitted  to  vote  "  verbally ;" 
it  provided  for  election  inspectors,  the  giving  of  certain 
oaths  to  electors,  and  for  the  continuance  of  the  polls  from 
day  to  day  until  all  those  present  were  polled;  and  it  gave 
in  full  the  several  oaths  of  allegiance  and  adjuration  which 
must  be  taken  by  members  of  the  assembly.  Subsequent 
acts  of  I7663  and  I7724  slightly  changed  the  mode  of 
choosing  election  inspectors,  but  the  principal  features  of  the 
act  of  1734  continued  without  material  change  until  the 
Revolution. 

1  Printed  code  of  1741,  p.  76;   code  of  1752,  p.  118. 

2  A  person  so  elected  was  disqualified  for  office  for  the  year  in  which 
the  election  took  place. 

3  November  i,  1766,  Adams'  Laws,  I,  429. 

4  June  13,  1772,  Adams'  Laws,  I,  500;   made  perpetual  by  act  of  Sep 
tember  2,  1775. 


The  Suffrage  in  Delaware.  271 

An  idea  of  a  colonial  election  can  be  drawn  from  the 
words  of  the  act  of  June  13,  1772.  The  sheriff  of  each 
county  was  required  to  furnish  a  ballot-box  for  each  hun 
dred,  with  the  name  of  the  hundred  painted  on  the  outside 
of  the  box.  On  election  day  the  sheriff  delivered  these  boxes 
to  the  inspectors  for  the  respective  hundreds,  who  evidently 
sat  together  in  some  convenient  place  in  the  county  town. 
The  elector  presented  his  ballot  to  the  inspector  of  the  hun 
dred  in  which  he  dwelt,  and  the  inspector  called  aloud  the 
name  of  the  voter  presenting  his  ballot,  and  then  deposited 
it  in  the  proper  box.  After  the  election  was  completed,  and 
it  might  last  several  days,  the  sheriff  must  open  each  box 
separately  and  compare  the  number  of  ballots  it  contained 
with  the  number  of  persons  who  had  been  announced  as 
voting  in  that  hundred.  When  these  were  made  to  tally 
all  the  ballots  were  placed  in  one  box  and  counted  by  the  elec 
tion  clerks.  There  was  a  penalty  of  twenty  shillings  for  vot 
ing  more  than  once  or  even  offering  to  do  so.1 

An  early  act2  changed  the  term  of  sheriffs  and  coroners 
from  three  years  to  one  year  and  provided  for  the  election 
of  a  double  number,  from  whom  the  governor  should  choose 
one  to  serve,  or,  if  he  neglected  the  duty,  at  the  end  of  six 
days  the  person  having  the  highest  number  of  votes  was  to 
fill  the  office.  The  act  of  13  George  II.8  shows  in  its  pre 
amble  that  in  Delaware,  as  in  Pennsylvania,  the  office  of 
sheriff  was  much  sought  after.  Candidates  are  said  to 
"  make  it  their  frequent  Practice  to  engage  Persons  to  vote 
for  them,  by  giving  them  strong  Drink,  and  using  other 
Means,  inconsistent  with  the  Design  of  free  Voting  at  Elec 
tions;  by  Means  whereof  many  unguarded  Persons  are 
drunk  and  disorderly  more  particularly  at  the  Time  of  Elec 
tions;  whereby  great  Confusions  and  Mischiefs  arise." 
Steps  were  taken  to  prevent  such  evils  by  disqualifying  the 
sheriff  for  three  years  after  he  had  served  three  terms  in 
succession ;  and  by  imposing  a  fine  of  ten  pounds  for  giving 
any  reward  or  promise  of  reward,  and  five  pounds  for  re 
ceiving  any  such  bribe. 

1  Adams'  Laws,  I,  500. 

s  Code  of  1752,  p.  29  (date  not  given). 

"Code  of  1741,  p.  108;   code  of  1752,  p.  133. 


272     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

Many  of  the  local  officials  were  appointed  by  the  county 
courts,1  and  in  the  few  cases  of  election,  the  qualifications 
of  the  provincial  suffrage  are  prescribed  for  local  electors.2 
One  exception  to  this  rule  existed  in  the  borough  suffrage 
ot  Wilmington  as  determined  by  its  charter  of  November 
1 6,  I739-3  The  borough  charter  provided  for  two  burgesses, 
six  assistants,  one  high  constable,  and  one  town  clerk,  all  of 
whom  were  to  be  annually  elected  by  ballot  by  the  inhabi 
tants.  The  suffrage  was  extended  to  all  freeholders  and  to 
those  housekeepers  who  had  resided  one  year  in  the  borough 
and  hired  a  house  and  ground  of  the  yearly  value  of  at  least 
five  pounds.  The  inhabitants  were  permitted  to  appoint 
other  necessary  officers  and  in  town  meetings  to  make  con 
venient  rules  and  ordinances,  provided  they  were  not  repug 
nant  to  the  laws  of  the  "  territories."  4 

Although  the  Delaware  territories  had  a  greatly  varied 
history  from  the  Swedish  and  Dutch  settlements  down  to 
the  Revolution,  yet  their  population  was  small  and  economi 
cally  homogeneous.  Racial  differences  existed,  but  these 
apparently  did  not  influence  politics.  Thus  the  suffrage 
question  was  never  a  vital  one  in  this  province  as  it  was  in 
NewT  England  or  Maryland.  For  fifty  years  of  the  early 
settlements  there  were  no  regular  elections,  and  not  until 
the  act  of  1734  was  the  subject  carefully  defined;  but  the 
act  of  that  year  remained  almost  unchanged  down  to  the 
Revolution.  In  local  matters,  while  the  levy  court  and  the 
hundred  organization  are  interesting  forms  of  local  govern 
ment,  they  do  not  furnish  anything  of  interest  to  a  study  of 
the  suffrage.  Delaware's  franchise  laws  followed  closely 
those  of  Pennsylvania,  with  compulsory  voting,  and  fines 
for  neglect,  as  a  most  striking  innovation. 

1  See  acts  of  15  Geo.  II  (code  of  1752,  pp.  200,  214,  220)  ;   25  Geo.  II 
(Adams,  I,  316)  ;    November  i,  1766  (ibid.,  429)  ;    November  25,  1775 
(ibid.,  544)- 

2  Act  of  16  Geo.  II  (code  of  1752,  p.  231). 

1  See  The  Ordinances  of  the  City  of  Wilmington,  Delaware,  to  which 
are  prefixed  the  Original  Borough  Charter  and  the  Acts  of  the  Legis 
lature,  now  in  force,  relating  to  the  City,  Wilmington,  1872. 

4  This  charter  is  closely  similar  to  those  granted  to  Chester,  Bristol, 
and  Lancaster  in  Pennsylvania,  see  post,  296-297. 


CHAPTER    X. 
THE  SUFFRAGE  IN  PENNSYLVANIA. 

Before  King  Charles's  grant  to  William  Penn,  the  Dela 
ware  lands  were  described  as  an  "  appendage  of  New  York," 
and  while  a  number  of  Dutch,  Swedish,  and  English  set 
tlers  had  established  themselves  upon  the  soil  of  the  present 
Pennsylvania  before  Penn's  assumption  of  control,  yet  they 
had  always  been  subject  to  some  distant  authority, — the 
Swedish  governor  at  Christina,  the  Dutch  director  at  New 
Amsterdam,  or  the  Duke  of  York's  deputy  at  New  York. 
Among  these  early  diverse  racial  elements  there  were  no 
closely  settled  towns  as  in  New  England,  few  common  in 
terests,  and  consequently  little  common  political  activity. 
The  court  at  Upland,  in  existence  only  a  few  years  before 
Penn's  grant,  was  the  most  dignified  political  body,  which, 
throughout  the  first  forty  years  and  more  of  European  set 
tlement,  met  within  the  present  limits  of  Pennsylvania. 
Popular  suffrage  was  rarely  exercised  during  this  period, 
and  never  was  permanently  established.  The  few  instances 
in  which  it  occurred  will  be  found  mentioned  in  the  articles 
upon  the  colonies  of  Delaware  and  New  York. 

Penn's  charter  from  the  king,  therefore,  furnishes  us  with 
a  logical  starting-point  for  a  view  of  the  suffrage  in  Pennsyl 
vania.  Within  this  charter  distinct  provision  is  made  for 
popular  legislative  assemblies  in  which  the  inhabitants  may 
join  with  the  proprietor  in  the  making  of  laws : 

"  Wee  .  .  .  Doe  grant  free,  full  &  absolute  power,  by  vertue  of  these 
presents  to  him  &  his  heires  ...  to  ordeyne,  make,  Enact  &  vnder  his 
and  their  Scales  to  publish  any  Laws  whatsoever,  for  the  raising  of 
money  for  the  publick  vse  of  the  said  province,  or  for  any  other  End 
appertayning  either  vnto  the  publick  state,  peace,  or  safety  of  the  said 
Countrey,  or  vnto  the  private  vtility  of  perticular  persons,  according 
vnto  their  best  discretions,  by  and  with  the  advice,  assent  and  appro- 
bacon  of  the  freemen  of  the  said  Countrey,  or  the  greater  part  of  them, 
or  of  their  Delegates  or  Deputies  .  .  ."  * 

1  Charter  and  Laws  of  the  Province  of  Pennsylvania,  1682-1700,  81. 

18  273 


274     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

The  proprietor  fully  approved  of  this  clause  of  the  char 
ter,  and  shortly  after  obtaining  the  legal  title  to  the  land 
he  wrote  a  letter  to  the  inhabitants  promising  them  broad 
powers  in  self-government : 

"...  I  hope  you  will  not  be  troubled  at  your  change,  and  the  king's 
choice,  for  you  are  now  fixed  at  the  mercy  of  no  governor  that  comes  to 
make  his  fortune  great;  you  shall  be  governed  by  laws  of  your  own 
making,  and  live  a  free,  and,  if  you  will,  a  sober  and  industrious  people. 
I  shall  not  usurp  the  right  of  any,  or  oppress  his  person.  God  has  fur 
nished  me  with  a  better  resolution,  and  has  given  me  his  grace  to  keep 
it.  In  short,  whatever  sober  and  free  men  can  reasonably  desire  for  the 
security  and  improvement  of  their  own  happiness,  I  shall  heartily  com 
ply  with,  and  in  five  months  resolve,  if  it  please  God,  to  see  you.  .  .  ."  * 

The  same  faith  in  popular  government  is  also  to  be  seen 
in  the  promise  made  in  Penn's  Proposals  to  Adventurers 
that  even  the  matter  of  the  division  of  lots  and  land  tracts 
shall  be  left  "  to  the  majority  of  votes  among  the  adven 
turers."  2  But  it  was  his  intention  that  he  should  be  on  the 
ground  before  the  calling  of  the  assemblies,  for  in  his  com 
mission  to  his  deputy,  Markham,  he  expressly  forbids  his 
representative  to  call  the  people  in  assemblies.3 

In  the  months  immediately  following  the  receipt  of  his 
grant,  Penn  and  his  friends  were  engaged  in  outlining  a 
plan  of  government  for  the  new  colony.  After  many  drafts  4 
a  "  frame"  of  government  was  issued  on  April  25,  1682, 
comprising  24  numbered  sections.5  The  frame  enacted  that 
"  the  government  of  this  province  shall,  according  to  the 
powers  of  the  patent,  consist  of  the  Governor  and  freemen 
of  the  said  province;  in  form  of  a  Provincial  Council  and 
General  Assembly,  by  whom  all  laws  shall  be  made,  officers 
chosen  and  publick  affairs  transacted."  The  council  was  to 
consist  of  seventy-two  members,  and  the  assembly  of  two 
hundred  members  elected  by  the  freemen;  but  the  first 
assembly  should  be  composed  of  all  the  freemen.  The  elec- 

1  Hazard,  Annals  of  Pennsylvania,  502. 
2 1  bid.,  511. 

3  Charter  and  Laws,  1682-1700,  Appendix,  470. 

*  See  Shepperd,  Proprietary  Government  in  Pa.,  225-250,  for  a  de 
scription  of  the  extant  manuscripts  of  these  frames.          ^ 
0  Charter  and  Laws,  1682-1700,  91-99. 


The  Suffrage  in  Pennsylvania.  275 

tion  of  councillors  and  assemblymen  was  to  be  by  ballot, 
but  the  Frame  did  not  give  the  qualifications  of  electors. 
This  was  added  in  a  code  of  forty  numbered  sections  called 
"  The  Laws  agreed  upon  in  England."  1  It  is  here  that  we 
first  find  a  definition  of  the  word  freeman.  That  the  royal 
charter  had  used  it  synonymously  with  freeholder  is  proved 
by  the  fact  that  the  assembly  is  spoken  of  in  one  instance 
as  made  up  of  the  freemen  and  in  another  case  as  composed 
of  the  freeholders.2  The  Frame  had  used  only  the  word 
freemen,  but  by  the  Laws  a  freeman  is  declared  to  be  one 
who  (a)  has  purchased  one  hundred  acres  of  land,  or  the 
heir  of  such  an  one;  or  (b)  who  has  paid  his  passage 
across  the  Atlantic  and  taken  up  one  hundred  acres  at  the 
rent  of  one  penny  an  acre,  and  cultivated  ten  acres  thereof; 
or  (c)  who  has  been  a  servant  and  becoming  free,  has  taken 
up  fifty  acres  and  cultivated  twenty;  or  (d)  who  is  an 
inhabitant,  artificer,  or  other  resident  paying  scot  and  lot 
to  the  government.  All  such  freemen  could  vote  for  or 
serve  in  the  Council  or  Assembly. 

The  qualifications  in  this  clause  may  have  been  intended 
to  distinguish  between  the  county  and  the  town  suffrage. 
Scot  and  lot  is  a  vague  term,  but  its  use  here  might  mean 
a  tax  paid  only  in  the  towns;  so  that  in  the  country  dis 
tricts  of  Pennsylvania  where  nearly  every  reputable  citizen 
would  be  a  freeholder  the  holding  of  land  was  to  be  a  requi 
site  to  voting;  while  in  the  towns,  where  intelligent  "ar 
tificers"  might  live  and  pay  taxes,  but  frequently  hold  no 
land,  the  qualification  of  electors  was  changed  to  fit  their 
conditions.  In  some  of  the  other  colonies  a  similar  provi 
sion  was  made  in  order  to  meet  the  difference  between  the 
economic  conditions  of  the  towns  and  the  country.3  The 
clause,  however,  was  never  enacted  in  this  form  in  Pennsyl 
vania. 

Another  of  the  laws  made  in  England  added  further  re 
strictions  upon  the  elector  by  requiring  him  to  be  twenty- 
one  years  of  age,  not  convicted  of  ill-fame  or  of  unsober  or 
dishonest  conversation,  but  professing  faith  in  Jesus  Christ. 

1  May  5,  1682,  Charter  and  Laws,  99-103. 

1  Compare  the  phraseology  of  Lord  Baltimore's  patent. 

'  See  N.  Y.,  N.  J.,  Va.,  etc. 


276     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

When  Penn  arrived  in  the  province  he  issued  writs  for 
the  first  assembly,  not  calling  all  the  freemen,  but  directing 
the  "  freeholders"  of  the  counties  to  elect  seven  representa 
tives  for  each  county.1  This  was  a  departure  from  the  pri 
mary  assembly  of  all  the  freemen  which  the  frame  directed 
should  be  first  called,  and  also  at  variance  with  the  repre 
sentative  organization  as  laid  down  in  the  frame.  The  mo 
tives  of  Penn  in  calling  a  representative  body  instead  of  a 
gathering  of  all  of  the  freemen  do  not  appear. 

Foremost  among  the  acts  of  the  first  assembly  appears 
"  An  Act  for  Naturalization."  2  This  had  a  marked  bear 
ing  upon  the  suffrage,  since  it  determined  the  manner  in 
which  a  large  number  of  foreigners  might  obtain  freeman- 
ship.  It  was  provided  that  all  foreigners  over  twenty-one 
years  of  age  holding  land  in  fee  should  be  held  as  freemen,  if 
within  three  months  they  would  solemnly  promise  allegi 
ance  to  the  king  and  fidelity  to  the  proprietor.  The  assem 
bly  also  went  on  to  debate  "  what  Persons  are  fit  to  be 
elected,  as  also  who  are  fit  to  make  Election."  3  The  fruit 
of  this  debate  is  seen  in  a  few  changes  which  the  Great  Law  4 
made  in  the  laws  agreed  upon  in  England.  Both  electors 
and  elected  must  now  believe  in  "  Jesus  Christ  to  be  the  son 
of  God,  the  Saviour  of  the  World;"  but  they  were  freed 
from  the  clause  requiring  a  definite  part  of  their  lands  to 
be  cultivated.  All  freeholders  must  indeed  have  their  lands 
"  seated"  or  settled,  but  no  longer  need  they  have  ten  or 
twenty  acres  under  cultivation.  Those  paying  scot  and 
lot  retained  their  right  to  vote.  These  provisions — one  hun 
dred  acres  of  land  seated,  or  fifty  acres  for  freed  servants, 
and  the  payment  of  scot  and  lot — continued  in  force  until 
all  the  proprietary  legislation  was  set  aside  by  Governor 
Fletcher  in  1693. 

1  Charter  and  Laws,  472.    The  preface  to  Vol.  I  of  the  Votes  of  As 
sembly  says  that  this  first  assembly  was  attended  by  "  so  many  of  the 
Freemen  as  thought  fit  to  attend"  (Votes,  I,  p.  iii)  ;   but  the  writ  proves 
that  the  assembly  was  a  representative  and  not  a  primary  organization ; 
and  the  Votes  themselves  on  the  first  page  record  an  undue  election  for 
one  of  the  Newcastle  members. 

2  Ibid.,  105;    Votes,  I,  I.  4-  3 1'otes.  I,  I,  4 
4  Chapters  II  and  LVII,  Charter  and  Laivs,  108,  121. 


The  Suffrage  in  Pennsylvania.  277 

While  there  was  no  change  in  the  legal  qualifications 
of  the  suffrage  J  in  the  period  of  ten  years,  yet  several 
interesting  administrative  facts  may  be  mentioned.  Both 
the  frame  of  1682  and  that  of  1683  required  the  election 
of  representatives  by  ballot,  but  this  appears  not  always 
to  have  been  carried  out,  and  we  are  unfamiliar  with  the 
actual  details  of  the  process  when  the  balloting-box  was 
used. 

As  early  as  March,  1682-3,  a  question  in  the  assembly 
was  settled  by  a  bean  ballot,  which  is  described  in  the  fol 
lowing  words :  u  the  Number  of  Votes  was  decided  by 
Beans,  put  into  the  Balloting-Box ;  and  by  the  major  Votes, 
it  was  carried  in  the  Affirmative."  2  A  contested  election 
case  in  Philadelphia  in  1689  shows  a  lack  of  uniformity 
existing  in  election  procedure.  There  appears  no  objection 
to  ascertaining  the  election  upon  the  "  view"  of  the  sheriff, 
by  the  acclamation  of  the  electors,  except,  as  in  this  case, 
where  a  number  of  unqualified  persons  mingled  with  the 
electors  and  by  acclamation  carried  the  election  of  their  can 
didate.  The  petitioners  to  the  council  aver  that  fifty  or 
sixty  "  Welsh  men"  and  persons  "  out  of  Jarsey"  had  elected 
a  councillor  who  would  not  have  received  a  majority  of 
legal  votes  had  a  poll  or  ballot  been  taken.  Yet  in  the  new 
election  which  was  ordered  the  sheriff  stated  in  his  return 
that  the  freemen  were  not  willing  to  vote  by  ballot,  prefer 
ring  by  voice  to  elect  their  councillors.3  The  second  elec 
tion  was  questioned  also  when  the  returns  were  sent  to  the 
council,  because  it  was  not  taken  by  ballot.  And  again 
there  appeared  great  confusion  of  thought  and  practice. 
One  member  said  that  the  ballot  was  only  used  when  doubt 
existed  as  to  the  candidate  receiving  the  majority  of  votes 
(voices)  ;  another  stated  that  the  ballot  was  used  only  in 
Philadelphia  County,  while  in  other  places  "  we  are  elected 
by  vote."  But  this  was  denied  by  a  third  member  who  said 
that  at  Upland  (Chester)  and  all  the  lower  counties  the 
election  was  made  by  putting  black  and  white  beans  into 

1  The  frame  of  April  2,  1683,  did  not  change  the  suffrage  conditions, 
although  it  greatly  modified  the  organization  of  the  legislature. 
-  Votes,  I,  I,  8.  3  Col.  Rec.,  I,  268,  279,  281-2. 


278     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

a  hat,  "  which  is  a  ballotting  in  his  sense."  *  Among  the 
patent  reasons  for  neglect  of  the  ballot  was  the  desire  to 
finish  the  elections  in  a  short  time  in  order  that  the  farmers, 
who  often  travelled  many  miles  to  vote,  might  return  home 
in  good  season.  Another  reason  without  doubt  was  the  fact 
that  many  of  the  electors  could  not  write  out  their  ballots, 
and  must  either  have  the  ballot  written  for  them  or,  by 
voting  viva  voce,  proclaim  to  the  other  electors  their  inability 
to  write. 

In  1692  Penn  was  dispossessed  of  his  government,  and 
Governor  Fletcher,  of  New  York,  was  commissioned  royal 
governor  of  Pennsylvania  and  the  "  Countrey  of  Newcas 
tle,"  with  as  great  powers  as  those  he  possessed  in  New 
York,2  including  the  power  to  call  assemblies  elected  by  the 
majority  of  the  freeholders.  The  sole  change  in  the  suf 
frage  by  this  royal  assumption  of  control  is  found  in  the 
omission  of  the  scot  and  lot  inhabitants  and  in  the  removing 
the  requirement  of  a  definite  size  of  freehold.  Fletcher  ap 
pears  unwilling  to  enlarge  or  limit  the  terms  of  his  commis 
sion  in  this  respect,  and  although  in  the  "  Petition  of  Right" 
he  agreed  to  eighty-six  chapters  of  the  statutes  passed  be 
fore  his  time,  yet  Chapter  II  of  the  Great  Law  of  1682, 
giving  the  property  qualifications  of  voters,  was  omitted, 
while  Chapter  LVII,  containing  the  religious  qualification, 
was  retained.  The  natural  inference  to  be  drawn  from  this 
omission  is  that  Fletcher  did  not  care  to  add  the  scot  and 
lot  payers  to  the  freeholders  of  his  commission  nor  to  re 
strict  the  latter  word  to  those  possessing  one  hundred  acres 
or  more  of  settled  land.  There  can  be  no  doubt,  however, 
that  little  actual  change  in  the  suffrage  was  made  by  the 
omission  of  the  previous  qualifications.  The  scot  and  lot 
voters  must  have  been  few  in  number  and  confined  to  Phila 
delphia  County,  where  the  city  of  Philadelphia  and  the  bor- 

1  West  Jersey  had  advanced  to  a  more  definite  method,  for  as  early  as 
September,  1683,  it  was  provided  that  votes  were  to  be  given  in  writing 
upon  pieces  of  paper   (Learning  and  Spicer,  478).     Compare  also  the 
corn  and  bean  ballot  in  Mass,  and  Conn.,  and  the  ballot  in  South  Caro 
lina. 

2  October  21,  1692,  Pennsylvania  Col.  Rec.,  I,  352-7;   New  York  Col. 
Doc.,  Ill,  856-860. 


The  Suffrage  in  Pennsylvania.  279 

ough  of  Germantown,  the  only  incorporated  places  in  the 
province,1  were  situated. 

Penn's  province  -was  restored  to  him  by  the  Crown  on 
August  20,  1694^  /and  shortly  afterwards  Penn  commis- 
'  sioned  William  Mdrkham  as  his  governor.  After  a  long 
contest  with  the  assembly,3  Markham  issued  a  new  frame 
of  government,  the  third  which  the  province  had  received.4 
Markham's  frame  restored  the  term  freeman,  which  had 
been  changed  by  Fletcher's  commission  to  freeholder,  and 
defined  the  term  in  a  manner  which  was  but  slightly  changed 
down  to  the  Revolution  : 

i 

"  3.  And  to  the  end,  It  may  be  known  who  those  that  in  this  Province 

&  territories  have  right  of,  or  be  deemed  freemen  to  Choose  or  to  be 
Chosen  to  serve  in  Council  and  assembly  as  aforesaid : 
a"  Be  it  Enacted  by  the  authority  aforesaid,  That  no  Inhabitant  of  this 
'Province  or  Territories,  shall  have  right  of  electing  or  being  elected  as 
aforesaid,  Unless  they  be  free :__Denizens.-of  this  government  and  are  of 
the  age  of  Twenty-one  years  or  upwards,  and  have  fifty  acres  of  land, 

/ten  acres  whereof  being  seated  and  cleared,  or  be  otherwise  worth  fifty 
pounds  lawful  money  of  this  government  Clear  estate,  and  have  been 
Resident  within  this  ^government  for  the  space  of  two  years  next  be 
fore  such  election." 

/ 

Here  for  the  first  time  we  have  a  definite  suffrage  pro 
vision  clothed  in  a  modern  phraseology  and  adapted  to  the 
needs  of  a  community  which  was  receiving  large  numbers 
of  foreign  immigrants  into  its  midst.  The  voter  must  be 
a  free  denizen  of  the  government;  that  is,  if  foreign-born 
he  must  have  become  naturalized  and  taken  the  oaths  or 
affirmations  of  allegiance  to  the  Crown  and  fidelity  to  the 
proprietor;  he  must  be  twenty-one  years  of  age  and  have 

resided  in  the  province  at  least  two  years.  The  old  mediaeval 
l 

1  The  charter  of  1691  to  Philadelphia,  may  or  may  not  have  been  in 
force  in  1693.     The  exact  status  of  affairs  under  this  charter  has  not 
yet  been  determined  by  local  historians.     Germantown  received  the  first 
borough  charter  granted  in  the  province,  in  1689.    Penna.  Archives,  I, 
111-115;   Holcomb,  Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies,  IV,  158. 

2  Charter  and  Laws,  245. 

8  See  Shepperd,  Proprietary  Government  in  Pa.,  278-283. 
4  During  session  of  assembly,  October  26-Novemoer  7,  1696. 


280     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

alternative  to  the  freehold — the  scot  and  lot — was  changed 
to  a  definite  personal  property  qualification. 

Three  years  after  the  granting  of  Markham's  frame  a 
most  interesting  contest  arose  over  the  neglect  of  the  suf 
frage  by  certain  counties.  Fines  for  refusal  to  hold  office 
and  perform  political  duties  were  common  in  the  early  his 
tory  of  almost  all  the  colonies,  and  in  a  number  there  existed 
punishments  for  individual  neglect  of  the  suffrage,1  while 
Massachusetts  fined  towns  refusing  to  elect  representatives; 
but  it  was  left  for  the  Pennsylvania  legislature  of  1699  to 
exceed  all  other  legislation  of  this  nature.  The  three  lower 
Delaware  counties  were  growing  restive  under  the  increase 
of  wealth  and  population  in  the  three  Pennsylvania  coun 
ties,  and  feared  an  early  increase  in  the  number  of  counties 
in  the  province,  with  a  consequent  breaking  down  of  the 
equality  of  representation  between  the  province  and  the 
territories.2  In  1699  the  freemen  of  Newcastle  County,  duly 
warned  by  the  sheriff,  met  for  purposes  of  election,  but  ut 
terly  refused  to  make  any  selection  of  representatives.  This 
refusal  was  termed  by  the  assembly  a  great  contempt  of 
the  governor  and  the  authority  of  the  government  and  "  a 
most  manifold  Slight  of  that  inestimable  priviledge  of  being 
represented  in  Legislation  by  reason  of  their  owne  choice."3 
The  assembly  then  proceeded  to  force  the  "  inestimable 
priviledge"  upon  the  people  by  placing  a  penalty  of  one  hun 
dred  pounds  fine  upon  any  county  refusing  to  elect  repre 
sentatives,  and  providing  that  the  sum  could  be  levied  by 
distress  and  sale  of  the  goods  of  any  four  or  more  inhabi 
tants  of  the  county,  who  should  be  reimbursed  by  a  county 
tax  upon  all  property.  Heavy  fines  were  also  imposed  upon 
individual  sheriffs  neglecting  their  duties  in  elections,  and 
upon  representatives  refusing  to  serve  when  elected.4 

The  Delaware  members  attended  the  sessions  of  the  next 
two  assemblies,  but  their  attendance  must  have  been  due 
more  largely  to  the  presence  of  the  proprietor  than  to  the 
threats  contained  in  the  law  of  1699.  Penn,  himself,  recog- 

1  Early  Md.,  Mass.,  Del.,  Va.,  etc. 
3  Votes,  I,  I,  130. 

3  Charter  and  Laws,  278. 

4  Ibid.,  279. 


The  Suffrage  in  Pennsylvania.  281 

nized  the  differences  between  the  two  sections  in  his  charter 
of  1701,  and  made  provision  for  the  legislative  separation 
of  the  territories  from  the  province,  a  permission  taken  ad 
vantage  of  by  the  lower  counties  in  1702. 

The  assembly  meeting  in  the  fall  of  1700,  under  the 
direction  of  Penn,  revised  and  re-enacted  the  laws  of  the 
province,1  making  little  change  in  the  suffrage  conditions. 
Fifty  acres  of  freehold  or  fifty  pounds  of  personal  estate 
were  retained  as  stated  by  Markham's  frame,  but  it  was 
now  required  that  twelve  acres  of  the  freehold,  instead  of 
ten,  should  be  cleared  and  improved.2  An  act  for  naturali 
zation,  passed  at  the  same  session,  put  this  power  into  the 
hands  of  the  proprietor  or  his  governor.3  Penn's  new  frame 
of  government,  signed  October  28,  1701,  did  not  specify 
the  qualifications  of  electors,  but  referred  to  the  act  of  No 
vember  27,  1700.  It  reinstated,  however,  the  former  relig 
ious  qualification  for  office-holders,  requiring  their  belief 
in  Christ  as  the  Saviour  of  the  world.4  This  test  was 
strengthened  beyond  the  terms  of  the  charter  by  later  action. 
As  early  as  I7O35  the  members  of  assembly  took  the  vari 
ous  English  tests,  either  by  oath  or  affirmation,  against  the 
political  or  spiritual  control  of  the  Pope,  denying  the  doc 
trine  of  transubstantiation,  and  denouncing  the  adoration 
of  the  Virgin  and  the  practice  of  the  mass. 

For  several  years  after  Penn's  departure  for  England, 
the  subject  of  the  suffrage  does  not  appear  in  any  of  the 
records.  The  attention  of  the  legislature,  however,  was 
called  to  the  conduct  of  elections  in  1705  through  a  petition 
from  Philadelphia  County,  setting  forth  how  an  election  had 
been  determined  first  by  the  "  vote"  (viva  voce),  and,  as  the 

1  Statutes  at  Large,  II,  3-141. 

'Ibid.,  24. 

8  Ibid.,  29.  Both  of  these  acts  were  repealed  by  the  Queen  in  Council, 
February  7,  1705-6.  The  reason  given  for  repealing  the  election  act  was 
that  it  provided  for  advertisement  of  elections  on  trees  or  houses  as  well 
as  court  houses.  "  It  ought  to  have  been  '  churches,  chapels,  and  public 
meeting-houses!'"  (Statutes  at  Large,  II,  Appendix,  465.) 

*  A  Collection  of  Charters  and  other  Publick  Acts  Relating  to  the 
Province  of  Pennsylvania,  Philadelphia,  B.  Franklin,  1740. 

8  Votes,  I,  II,  i.  " 


282     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

time  grew  late,  the  country  people  set  out  for  their  homes, 
but  that  afterwards  the  ballot-box  was  called  for,  and  by  the 
votes  of  servants  and  unqualified  persons,  the  candidate  of 
the  country  people  was  set  aside.1  The  episode  led  to  a  new 
and  comprehensive  election  law,  the  terms  of  which  appear 
to  have  called  forth  considerable  debate  in  the  assembly. 
Among-  the  questions  discussed  was  that  of  allowing  the 
qualified  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  Philadelphia  to  vote  for 
the  two  city  members  and  for  the  eight  county  members 
as  well,  thus  giving  them  a  double  vote.2  A  proposal  to 
require  fifty  pounds  value  of  real  estate  in  the  counties  and 
fifty  pounds  of  personal  property  in  the  city  was  voted 
down,3  and  the  qualifications  as  laid  clown  in  the  act  of 
1700  were  adopted.4  The  act  itself,  consequently,  is  of  more 
value  in  the  making,  and  as  showing  new  administrative  pro 
visions  to  protect  the  suffrage  than  because  it  introduces  new 
qualifications.5 

It  is  not  our  part  to  analyze  the  election  laws  of  the  col 
ony,  but  reference  may  be  made  to  some  of  the  important 
provisions  of  this  first  general  election  law.  The  legislature 
is  composed  of  eight  members  from  each  county  and  two 
from  the  city  of  Philadelphia.  Electors  are  to  be  native 
or  naturalized  citizens,  twenty-one  years  of  age,  residents 
of  the  province  for  two  years,  and  possessing  fifty  acres 
of  freehold,  twelve  of  which  is  cleared,  or  fifty  pounds 
personal  property.  Fines  are  imposed  upon  those  voting 
who  do  not  possess  these  qualifications,  as  also  for  bribery 
or  voting  more  than  once.  Elections  are  to  be  by  written 
ballots  deposited  in  boxes,  with  the  polls  open  from  ten  in 
the  morning  till  two  in  the  afternoon,  and  adjourning  from 
day  to  day.  Provision  is  made  for  judges,  inspectors,  and 

1  Penna.  Magazine  of  History  and  Biography,  II.  452. 

2  Votes,  I,  II,  69. 

3  Ibid.,  76.    A  requirement  of  £50  value  of  real  estate  would  have  been 
almost  prohibitive,  for  as  late  as  1775,  in  Philadelphia  County  (outside 
the  city),  the  wealthiest  and  most  populous  county  in  the  colony,  there 
were  only  147  persons  assessed  at  over  ^50  out  of  a  total  rateable  popu 
lation  of  6941  persons. 

*Ibid.,  70. 

3  Statutes  at  Large,  II,  212-^221 ;    Act  of  January  12,  1705-6. 


The  Suffrage  in  Pennsylvania.  283 

clerks  of  election ;  for  returns  by  indenture  to  the  governor 
and  the  assembly,  and  for  fines  upon  those  refusing  to  serve 
after  election.  The  provisions  of  this  act  furnished  the  out 
line  for  all  subsequent  laws  upon  the  subject  in  the  colony. 
There  were  frequent  changes  in  the  method  of  selecting  the 
election  officials,  particularly  after  the  counties  were  divided 
into  voting  precincts,  but  the  main  provisions  of  the  act  of 
12o6  remained  unchanged. 

At  the  same  session  of  assembly  an  act  was  passed  regu 
lating  the  elections  of  sheriffs  and  coroners,1  which  soon 
became  a  source  of  trouble.  The  act  prescribed  the  method 
of  electing  these  officers,  but  it  did  not  state  exactly  the 
qualifications  of  electors  at  such  elections.  It  was  doubt 
less  understood  that  the  body  of  electors  was  the  same  for 
sheriffs  and  coroners  as  for  representatives,  since  the  former 
officers  were  to  be  elected  in  a  double  number  after  the 
election  of  assemblymen  had  taken  place.  From  this  double 
list  of  nominees  the  governor  should  choose  one  for  each 
office,  or,  if  he  neglected  this  duty,  then  the  person  having 
the  highest  number  of  votes  should  assume  the  position.2 
The  voters  in  this  act  were  described  as  "  freemen  and 
electors,"  "  freemen  and  inhabitants,"  and  "  freemen  or 
electors,"  apparently  making  a  distinction  between  the  words 
freeman  and  elector.  It  was  this  ambiguity  which  led  to 
disorders  at  elections  and  to  the  participation  of  many 
poorer  people  in  the  balloting  for  sheriffs  and  coroners.  In 
January,  1713-14,  a  petition  from  Philadelphia  called  atten 
tion  to  the  defects  of  the  law,3  but  the  assembly  gave  no 
redress.  The  following  year  the  assembly  was  compelled 
to  set  aside  both  the  persons  receiving  an  apparent  major 
ity,4  and  two  years  later  they  passed  an  act  limiting  the  suf 
frage  for  sheriffs  and  coroners  to  those  qualified  to  vote  for 
representatives.5 

1  Act  of  January  12,  1705-6,  Statutes  at  Large,  II,  272-5. 

2  Compare  the  common  Dutch  practice  of  double  and  triple  nomina 
tions  (American  Historical  Review,  VI,  712-713). 

3  Votes,  II,  146;   Statutes  at  Large,  III,  138. 

4  Ibid.,  159,  166. 

5  Ibid.,  213;    Statutes  at  Large,  III,  138-140;    act  of  August  24,  1717. 
This  act  required  each  voter  to  present  on  one  piece  of  paper  the  names 


284     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

Exactly  the  same  misinterpretation  was  made  regarding 
the  choice  of  election  inspectors  under  the  act  of  1706,  by 
the  mingling  of  unqualified  persons  among  the  electors  and 
their  taking  part  in  the  viva  voce  vote  for  inspectors.1  Peti 
tioners  from  Chester  County  first  called  the  attention  of  the 
assembly  to  the  abuse  in  1726,  and  although  a  supplement 
ary  act  was  passed  the  following  year,2  yet  great  disorders 
occurred  in  I739,3  and  the  machinery  of  election  was  there 
after  frequently  changed  in  detail  in  order  to  adjust  it  to 
these  conditions.4 

From  1706  onward  the  interest  in  the  suffrage  in  Penn 
sylvania  centres  not  in  the  electors  but  in  the  masses  of 
non- voters,  who,  legally  disqualified,  used  every  possible 
means  to  influence  the  elections.  One  sees  them  frequently 
in  the  background  of  the  election  picture  with  sticks  or 
stones  or  even  "  billets  of  wood,"  instead  of  the  forbidden 
ballots,  trying  by  physical  means  to  express  their  opinions. 
From  the  point  of  view  of  the  ruling  class  they  are  "  ser 
vants,"  or  "  great  numbers  of  disorderly  persons,"  or  "  an 
outrageous  Multitude,"  who,  by  "  their  rude  and  disorderly 
behaviour"  disturb  the  elections,  or  who  "  presumed  to  vote 
when  they  did  not  have  the  right  so  to  do."  Mention  has 
already  been  made  of  their  place  in  the  city  election  of  1705, 
and  howT  their  interference  in  other  elections  compelled 
greater  and  greater  stringency  and  accuracy  of  statement  in 
the  election  laws. 


of  eight  persons  for  representatives,  two  names  for  coroner,  and  six 
names  for  assessors  of  the  county.  The  act  of  March  20,  1724-5  changed 
this  from  one  piece  to  three  distinct  papers,  one  for  each  of  the  three 
classes  of  officers  voted  for.  (Votes,  II,  309;  Statutes  at  Large,  IV, 
10.) 

1  Statutes  at  Large,  IV,  331. 

2  Votes,  III,  8,  9,  14,  25,  31 ;  Statutes  at  Large,  IV,  77 ;   Col.  Rec.,  Ill, 
277-8. 

zlbid.,  324,  337;   Statutes  at  Large,  IV,  331. 

*  Statutes  at  Large,  IV,  375  ;  V,  16, 153,  465  ;  and  Pamphlet  Laws,  acts 
of  March  4,  1763,  February,  1766,  February  26,  1773.  In  one  of  these 
laws  occurs  the  only  instance  known  of  the  application  of  the  term 
"  hundred"  to  a  political  unit  in  Pennsylvania  history  (Statutes  at 
Large,  IV,  331)  ;  the  hundred  being  a  subdivision  of  the  county  for  pur 
pose  of  choosing  election  inspectors. 


The  Suffrage  in  Pennsylvania.  285 

If  our  space  permitted,  it  would  be  interesting  to  note  the 
part  played  by  these  persons  in  a  number  of  later  contested 
elections.  In  1739  Chester  County  sends  up  its  protest 
against  them;1  and  in  1742  it  is  Philadelphia  which  ob 
jects  to  its  "  bloody  election"  and  the  interference  of  a  band 
of  "strange  sailors."2  In  1749  Lancaster  County  has  a 
great  scandal,  unqualified  persons  and  even  boys  voting, 
some  casting  three,  five,  or  ten  ballots,  and  the  total  of  votes 
cast  perhaps  more  than  doubling  the  number  of  voters  at 
the  election.3  The  following  year,  York  County  has  its 
turn,  and  recounts  a  sorry  story  of  the  sheriff  driven  from 
the  ballot-box  and  the  polling  place  by  a  "  multitude  of  Peo 
ple,  chiefly  Germans."4  In  1752  Bucks  County  sent  its 
petition  against  "  able  Freeholders  greatly  questioned,  and 
others  (perhaps  making  a  better  Figure)  though  insufficient, 
accepted"  as  electors ;  and  York  County  again  had  a  protest, 
this  time  against  candidates  "  laying  open  the  Public  Houses 
at  the  Time  of  Election."  5  In  almost  every  one  of  these 
cases  the  assembly  tried  to  patch  up  the  election  law  at 
the  point  where  its  weakness  had  admitted  the  unqualified 
persons.  After  1752,  frequent  changes  were  made  in  the  law 
for  the  choice  of  inspectors  of  election,6  and  at  last  these 
officers  were  required  to  use  the  constables'  lists  of  taxables 
to  aid  them  in  judging  of  the  qualifications  of  voters.7  This 
machinery  of  election  must  have  become  more  closely  adapted 
to  the  wishes  of  the  legislators,  for  in  the  later  years  there 
is  little  record  of  election  disputes,  and  Acrelius,  in  1758, 
in  describing  the  method  of  election  in  the  province,  makes 
no  reference  to  the  excluded  classes,  although  he  gives  a 
circumstantial  and  detailed  account  of  elections.8 

That  the  disqualified  class  was  a  large  one  is  a  patent 

1  Votes,  III,  324,  337 ;    Col.  Rec.,  IV,  335  J  Statutes  at  Large,  IV,  331. 

*  Ibid.,  497-506,  521  and  appendix;  Col  Rec.,  IV,  620-638;  Stat 
utes  at  Large,  IV,  375;  Penna.  Mag.  of  Hist.,  V,  n. 

3  Ibid.j  IV,  117-126;    Mombert,  History  of  Lancaster  County,  150. 

•Ibid.,  150,  152;   Col.  Rec.,  V,  468. 

3  Ibid.,  204-5 ;   Statutes  at  Large,  V,  159. 

'Acts  of  March  n,  1752;  September  29,  1759;  March  4,  1763;  Feb 
ruary  8,  1766;  February  26,  1773. 

7  Acts  of  March  n,  1752,  and  February  8,  1766. 

8  Memoirs,  Penna.  Historical  Society,  XI,  119-121. 


286     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

fact;  but  it  is  difficult  to  arrive  at  any  definite  conclusion 
concerning  the  proportion  which  the  voting  class  bore  to  the 
whole  male  population.  An  inspection  of  assessment  lists  may 
give  some  clue  to  the  size  of  the  class  exercising  the  suf 
frage.  The  Historical  Society  of  Pennsylvania  has  three 
tax-lists  in  its  general  collections  —  one  for  the  county  of 
Philadelphia  for  1693,*  another  for  Chestnut,  South,  and 
Middle  wards  of  the  city  for  I754,2  and  the  third  for  Chest 
nut,  Lower  Delaware,  and  Walnut  wards  of  the  city  for 


In  1693  the  suffrage  was  based  on  the  instructions  to 
Governor  Fletcher,  which  limited  the  franchise  to  free 
holders.  Unfortunately,  the  tax-list  of  that  year  does  not 
show  the  property  upon  which  the  assessment  was  made, 
and  hence  does  not  give  the  exact  number  of  freeholders.4 
The  list  shows  one  hundred  and  eighty-six  persons  paying" 

1  "  By  Virtue  of  a  Law  made  at  Philadelphia  by  a  Gen11  Assembly 
held  the  15th  May,  1693.    For  Granting  One  penny  per  pound  To  King 
William  &  Queen  Marey,  etc." 

2  "  A  Tax  of  two  pence  in  the  pound  and  six  shillings  per  head  Laid 
on  the  Estates  of  the  Freeholders  &  Inhabitants  of  the  City  of  Phila 
delphia.  .  .  .  Assessed  the  20th  day  of  Aug.  1754." 

8  "  We  the  subscribers  Overseers  of  the  poor  have  laid  the  following 
Tax  of  two  pence  in  the  pound  and  six  shillings  p.  head  on  the  Estates 
and  Inhabitants  of  the  City  of  Philadelphia." 

Dated  December  12,  1767. 

Total.  Men.  Women.      Poll  tax. 

*  City,  ...........................  356  342  14  77 

Northern  Liberties  ..............  61  59  2  28 

Oxford  Township   ..............  32  31  i  9 

Cheltenham    ....................  23  23  .  .  8 

Bristol  Township  ...............  16  16  .  .  5 

Germantown  Township   .........  51  50  i  n 

Plimouth  Township  .............  2  2  ..  i 

Byberry   ........................  18  18  .  .  3 

Upper  Precinct   .................  5  5  .  .  i 

Dublin    .........................  27  27  .  .  i 

Passiunk,  Wiccaco,  Moyamensing  27  27  .  .  9 

Beyond   Schuykill    ..............  18  18  .  .  i 

Welsh  tract   ....................  69  67  2  24 

Total    ....................  705          685  20          186 


The  Suffrage  in  Pennsylvania.  287 

poll-tax  out  of  a  total  male  taxable  population  of  six  hun 
dred  and  eighty-five;  but  even  this  does  not  give  us  a  clue 
to  the  suffrage,  for  the  least  amount  of  property  assessed 
was  thirty  pounds  ;  those  having  less  than  that  being  taxed 
on  the  head,  among  whom  must  have  been  many  small  free 
holders.  We  are  forced  to  turn  from  this  to  the  second  one 

of  I754: 

At  this  time,  under  the  act  of  1706,  those  inhabitants  had 
the  right  to  vote  who  held  fifty  acres  of  land  or  fifty  pounds 
value  of  property,  real  or  personal.  The  tax-list  gives  us 
the  taxables  for  Chestnut,  South,  and  Middle  wards  of  the 
city  of  Philadelphia.  It  may  be  taken  for  granted  that  no 
one  held  fifty  or  more  acres  in  any  of  these  wards,1  and  that 
the  distinction  between  the  voting  and  non-voting  classes 
can  be  based  upon  the  value  of  the  property  held.2*  The  list 
shows  a  total  of  four  hundred  and  eighty-six  male  taxables, 
of  whom  sixty-three,  or  about  13  per  cent.,  were  assessed 
for  fifty  pounds  of  over.  The  list  of  1767  3  shows  fifty-three 
out  of  three  hundred  and  sixty-four  male  taxables  possessing 
fifty  pounds  or  over  ;  a  proportion  of  nearly  1  5  per  cent. 

It  is  difficult  to  determine  at  this  late  day  what  relation 
the  assessed  value  of  property  bore  to  its  market  value,  and 

1  Perm's  final  plan  of  division  of  city  lots  gave  two  acres  in  the  city 
to  each  purchaser  of  one  hundred  acres  in  the  country. 

2  Summary  of  Philadelphia  City  taxables  for  1754  : 


on 


e 


Men.         Women.     IA*C",    "  assessed 

PolK  over  £50. 

Chestnut  Ward  99            14            19  22 

Southward 142            10            22  17 

Middle  Ward    245            22            30  24 

Total    486            46            71  63 

1  Summary  of  Philadelphia  City  taxables  for  1767: 

Males 

Men.          Women.          p*n  °n  assessed 

PolK  overdo. 

Chestnut  Ward  114            1 1            36  20 

Lower  Delaware 139            13            43  20 

Walnut  Ward  in            21            32  13 

Total    364           45          in  53 


288     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

it  is  not  clear  whether  the  assessment  lists  were  made  the  sole 
basis  for  the  voting  privileges,  since  the  laws  of  1752  and 
1766  stated  that  the  tax-lists  were  to  be  given  to  the  election 
inspectors  to  enable  them  "  the  better  to  judge  of  the  quali 
fications  of  the  electors."  *  But  making  all  possible  allow 
ances  for  these  elements  of  error,  the  fact  is  apparent  that 
only  a  small  minority  of  the  male  inhabitants  of  the  city  of 
Philadelphia  were  legally  qualified  for  exercising  the  elec 
toral  franchise. 

Access  has  also  been  gained  to  two  other  assessment  lists, 
from  which  some  valuable  deductions  may  be  made.  One 
of  these  is  for  certain  farming  districts  in  Philadelphia 
County,  showing  not  only  the  value  of  the  estates  but  also 
the  exact  number  of  acres  of  land  owned  by  each  freeholder 
in  the  spring  of  1776.  Another  is  a  list  of  the  taxable  in 
habitants  for  the  whole  city  and  county  of  Philadelphia  for 
the  year  I775-2  From  these  lists  a  valuable  comparison  can 
be  made  showing  the  extent  of  the  suffrage  in  a  populous 
farming  community  and  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia. 

The  list  for  1776  gives  us  the  taxable  inhabitants  of  twelve 
townships  in  the  northwestern  part  of  Philadelphia  County,3 
showing  the  nature  and  amount  of  each  taxable's  estate. 
By  a  count  of  the  names  and  estates  here  given,  it  appears 
that  among  fourteen  hundred  and  fifty-five  male  taxable  in 
habitants,  seven  hundred  and  forty-three,  or  a  little  over 
50  per  cent.,  owned  fifty  or  more  acres  of  land.  It  must  be 
remembered,  too,  that  this  was  a  populous  district,  near  the 
city  of  Philadelphia,  where,  if  anywhere  in  the  colony,  farms 
would  be  small.  In  the  back  counties  where  land  was  cheap 
and  farms  large,  the  proportion  of  voters  to  the  whole  male 
population  may  have  been  even  higher.  Such  a  proportion, 
making  one  person  in  every  two  taxable  males  a  voter,  would 

1  Statutes  at  Large,  V,  156;   VII,  37. 

2"A  tax  of  three  Pence  in  the  Pound  and  Nine  shillings  per  Head 
laid  on  the  Estates  of  the  Freeholders  and  Inhabitants  of  the  City  and 
County  of  Philadelphia  for  paying  Assembly  Mens  Wages,  Building  and 
Repairing  of  Bridges,  Destroying  Wolves,  Foxes  and  Crows,  and  other 
Exigencies  of  the  County  for  the  ensuing  Year. 

Assessed  the  31st  day  of  March,  1775." 

8  The  following  table  gives  a  summary  of  the  taxable  inhabitants  of 
these  townships  according  to  the  assessment  of  1776: 


The  Suffrage  in  Pennsylvania. 


289 


give  us  perhaps  one  elector  in  every  ten  or  twelve  of  the 
population. 

On  the  other  hand,  those  who  were  qualified  to  vote  under 
the  fifty  pounds  clause  in  the  country  must  have  been  very 
few  in  number.  In  1775  the  twelve  townships  mentioned 
contained  only  fourteen  persons  who  were  assessed  for  fifty 
pounds  or  over.  In  places  more  distant  from  the  centre  of 
wealth  and  population,  the  proportion  owning  that  amount 
was  even  smaller.  An  assessment  list  of  Berks  County  for 
1774  shows  only  twenty-nine  taxables  assessed  for  fifty 
pounds  or  over  out  of  a  total  taxable  population  of  three 
thousand  eight  hundred  and  eighty-five,  or  not  one  in  a  hun 
dred  !  Evidently,  if  the  assessment  lists  were  used  as  the  law 
directed  to  determine  a  man's  qualification  for  the  suffrage, 
very  few  received  that  privilege  under  the  fifty  pounds  pro 
vision.1 


TAX  OF  1776. 

TOTAL  TAXABLE  IN 
HABITANTS. 

WOMEN  TAXABLES. 

MALE  TAXABLES. 

PERSONS  ASSESSED 
FOR  /"50  OR  OVER.* 

Men  having  over 
50  acres. 

Men  having  under 
50  acres. 

1 

60 

ll 

sg 

3 

£ 

a 

II 

Frankford  and  New  Hanover.  . 
Douglas  township 

183 
!59 
130 

139 
1  08 

79 
7i 

97 
78 
88 

120 
232 

4 
3 

i 

4 

2 
I 

3 

o 
3 
3 
o 

5 

98 
77 
74 
76 
52 
42 
33 

61 

47 
28 

39 
116 

74 
66 

35 
40 

3i 
23 
28 

23 
15 
44 
58 
85 

7 

12 
20 
19 
23 
13 

7 

13 
13 
13 

3 

I79 
156 
I29 
135 

106 

78 
68 

97 

6 

120 
227 

o 

2 

I 
o 
o 

0 
0 

3 
o 

4 
I 

3 

Upper  Hanover  township  
Limerick  township 

Upper  Salford  township  

Lower  Salford        " 

Frederick                "          

Perkiomen  and  Skeipack  town 
ship 

Franconia  township 

Bristol             " 

Norriton 

Providence      " 

1484 

29 

743 

520 

199 

1455 

14 

*  The  figures  of  last  column  are  taken  from  the  list  of  preceding  year  {1775). 
unlikely  that  any  considerable  change  took  place. 


It  is 


"A  Register  of  the  Eighteenth  18  Penny  Provincial  Tax  and  a 
County  Tax,  Assessed  and  Laid  on  the  Inhabitants  of  the  County  of 
Berks,  in  the  Month  of  December,  A.  D.  1774."  I  have  used  the  MS. 
transcript  in  the  Pennsylvania  Historical  Society. 

19 


290     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 


While,  however,  the  fifty  acres  requirement  was  met  by 
nearly  one-half  of  the  adult  male  population  in  the  country 
districts,  it  would  be  almost  prohibitive  in  the  city  and  bor 
oughs,  where  the  franchise  would  of  necessity  be  based  upon 
the  value  of  estates  rather  than  their  area.  The  tax-lists  lead 
to  the  belief  that  fifty  acres  of  land  and  fifty  pounds  estate 
were  by  no  means  equivalent  terms ;  and  the  franchise  was 
more  widely  extended  in  the  country  than  in  the  city  of  Phil 
adelphia  or  the  boroughs.1 

A  tax-list  for  1 775  gives  the  value,  but  not  the  size  of  the 
estates  of  all  taxable  inhabitants  of  the  city  and  county.  Tak 
ing  the  figures  from  this  list,2  it  is  clear  that  the  suffrage  was 

1  The  restriction  of  the  suffrage  in  the  city  has  been  ascribed  to  the 
desire  of  the  ruling  party  to  keep  control  of  the  government,  by  limiting 
the  voters  in  Philadelphia  and  the  number  of  representatives  in  the 
western  counties.  (C.  H.  Lincoln,  The  Revolutionary  Movement  in 
Penna.,  1760-1776,  45;  and  Penna.  Mag.  of  Hist.,  XXIII,  27  note.) 

3  The  following  table  gives  a  summary  of  this  tax-list. 


CITY. 

TOTAL  TAXABLE  IN 
HABITANTS. 

FEMALE 
TAXABLES. 

MALE  TAXABLES. 

! 

0 

§ 

5 

ii 

?> 
^ 

t 

0 

ii 

I 

<u 
*§ 

K 

_rt 

I 

H 

1 
S« 

•rt.2 
l? 

Dock  Ward  

89I 
96 
153 
362 
103 
132 

161 
410 

II2I 
I96 

9 

2 

5 
7 
3 
3 
3 
6 
6 
o 

29 

2 
2 
19 

4 
3 
9 

20 

36 

5 

87 

10 

16 

43 
14 
15 
18 
46 
65 

21 

597 
67 

97 
225 
68 
80 
109 
262 
916 
140 

I69 
15 

33 
68 

H 
3i 

22 

76 
98 

30 

853 
92 
146 
336 
96 
126 
149 

384 
1079 
I9I 

Walnut  Ward  

South  Ward  

Middle  Ward  

Chestnut  Ward  

Lower  Delaware  Ward  

High  Street  Ward 

North  Ward 

Mulberry  \Vard 

Upper  Delaware  \Vard 

Total  for  city    

3625 
6941 

44 

129 

335 
H7* 

2561 
5789* 

556 
1005 

3452 

County  outside  city     

Kntire  city  and  county   .... 

10566 

44 

129 

482 

8350 

I56l 

•• 

*  Female  taxpayers  have  not  been  distinguished  in  the  county ;  but  the  number  is  so 
small  as  to  be  insignificant. 


The  Suffrage  in  Pennsylvania. 


291 


far  more  restricted  in  the  urban  than  in  the  suburban  and  rural 
districts.  In  the  city  for  the  year  1775  out  of  a  total  of  three 
thousand  four  hundred  and  fifty-two  male  taxables,  there 
were  only  three  hundred  and  thirty-five  persons  who  were 

TAXABLES,  COUNTY  OUTSIDE  CITY. 


TOWNSHIP. 

Over 
£*>. 

Under 
^50. 

Polls. 

Total. 

Abington         

Ill 

18 

T  1A 

Blockley      

j 

11  .J 

IO7 

26 

ad4 

T  1A 

Bristol  

1  A. 

16 

134 

QA 

Byberry           

0 

76 

16 

94 

02 

Cheltenham     

2 

8<; 

22 

y-* 

IOQ 

Douglas   

2 

T  ^2 

109 
161 

Frederick  

O 

QO 

1UO 
Q7 

Franconia  

0 

68 

12 

80 

Frankford  and  New  Hanover  

0 

i6<; 

16 

181 

Germantown  

1  2 

TOT 

7Q 

482 

Gwinedth  

0 

07* 
III 

27 

402 
178 

Hatfield              

0 

77 

13° 
82 

Harsham                 ....         

j 

Q7. 

7T 

121 

Kingsessing  

IO 

66 

•J1 

»*a 

gc 

Lower  Menon               .    . 

2 

n6 

CA 

°0 

IO2 

Lower  Dublin 

jtr-j 

46 

Ay-* 

2O2 

Lower  Salford 

«;8 

2O 

78 

Limrick 

j 

127 

IQ 

147 

Moyamensing 

2 

*' 

60 

7 

78 

Montgomery     . 

j 

I7\ 

12 

86 

Manor  of  Moreland 

2^6 

CT 

287 

Marlborough 

j 

78 

12 

QI 

Norriton                                  . 

I 

06 

2O 

3r* 

117 

Northern  Liberties  West  Part 

18 

A-IO 

41 

48o 

Northern  Liberties   Hast  Part 

oc 

*fjf~ 

AQ8 

C2 

Vy 

C7c 

Oxford 

6 

^.v^u 

118 

17 

141 

Plymouth 

j 

74 

76 

IOI 

Providence 

IQ7 

7O 

27Q 

Passyunk 

82 

QC 

Perkiomen  and  Skippack  

85 

18 

T06 

Roxborough 

83 

IQ 

IO7 

Southwark 

2A 

680 

67 

771 

Springfield                              .                    .... 

I 

74. 

12 

8? 

Tonamencin                                            

66 

27 

8q 

Upper  Hanover                                          .... 

IO2 

22 

124 

Upper  Salford                                      

87 

21 

1  08 

Upper  Merion           .           .                 

I 

82 

21 

IO4 

Upper  Dublin       ...                             

2 

QA 

2*. 

no 

Whitemarsh    

6 

I^c 

78 

I7O 

Whitpain      

QQ 

17. 

112 

Worcester       .                       .         

2 

117 

JC 

I'lO 

H7 

5789 

1005 

6941 

292     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

assessed  for  fifty  pounds  or  more;  or  scarcely  one  taxable 
male  in  ten  by  this  assessment  had  the  proper  qualification 
for  the  suffrage.  It  is  recognized  that  there  may  be  some 
elements  of  error  in  this  list;  the  property  may  have  been 
purposely  undervalued,  some  of  the  city  inhabitants  may  have 
owned  fifty  acres  or  more  in  the  country,  and  some  personal 
property  may  not  have  been  assessed  at  all.  But  making 
allowance  for  such  errors,  it  is  still  believed  that  the  pro 
portion  of  voters  to  non-voters  in  the  city  is  relatively  small. 
Looking  over  all  of  these  assessment  lists,  it  would  ap 
pear  that  one  man  in  every  two  taxables  had  the  right  to  vote 
in  the  country  districts ;  and  estimating  the  taxables  at  one- 
fifth  of  the  total  population,  we  would  find  the  franchise 
conferred  upon  one  person  in  ten  of  the  entire  population 
of  the  farming  communities.  In  the  city  of  Philadelphia, 
on  the  other  hand,  where  the  fifty  pounds  clause  would  be 
the  only  qualification,  but  one  taxable  in  ten  possessed  the 
requisite  amount  of  property ;  or,  using  the  same  proportion 
of  taxables  to  the  whole  population,  only  one  person  in  fifty 
of  the  city  population  was  shown  by  the  tax  assessments  to 
be  qualified  for  the  suffrage.  There  is  thus  a  remarkable 
difference  between  the  number  of  legal  voters  in  the  country 
and  in  the  city  in  Pennsylvania.  It  may  be  further  noted 
that  the  limited  suffrage  in  Philadelphia  does  not  compare 
favorably  with  the  municipal  franchise  in  New  York,  where 
the  voting  class,  owing  to  the  admission  of  inhabitants  as 
voters,  must  have  been  several  times  larger  than  that  in 
Philadelphia.  The  laws  of  Pennsylvania  undoubtedly 
worked  to  the  disadvantage  of  the  mechanics  and  artisans 
of  the  city. 

We  have  hitherto  been  discussing  the  suffrage  for  the 
colonial  legislature,  but  we  may  glance  rapidly  at  a  few  in 
stances  in  which  the  local  suffrage  qualifications  varied  from 
the  provincial  requirements. 

The  early  history  of  local  institutions  in  Pennsylvania  is 
still  involved  in  considerable  obscurity,  although  some  short 
studies  of  the  subject  have  been  made.1  Setting  aside  the 

1  E.  R.  L.  Gould,  /.  H.  Univ.  Studies,  I ;  W.  P.  Holcomb,  Penna. 
Boroughs,  J.  H.  Univ.  Studies,  IV;  Howard,  Local  Const.  Hist,  in 
U.  S.:  AUinson  and  Penrose,  Phila.,  xv-xliii. 


The  Suffrage  in  Pennsylvania.  293 

conditions  in  the  Swedish  and  Dutch  days,  and  even  those 
under  the  Duke  of  York's  government,  there  still  remain 
several  problems  in  connection  with  the  early  history  of 
institutions.  Prominent  among  these  is  the  question  of 
the  origin  and  functions  of  the  Pennsylvania  township. 
There  is  a  strong  contrast  between  the  sturdy  and  com 
pact  New  England  town  corporation  and  the  vague  and 
indefinite  township  in  Pennsylvania  in  the  seventeenth 
and  eighteenth  centuries.  In  New  England  the  town  is 
usually  erected  in  a  definite  way,  has  precise  boundaries, 
fixed  powers,  and  distinct  individuality.  In  Pennsylvania 
it  is  difficult  to  determine  how  the  township  began,  and 
often  we  learn  it  is  in  existence  in  an  accidental  way  by  occa 
sional  references,  rather  than  see  its  beginning  in  a  formal 
act  of  incorporation.  In  a  similar  manner  the  functions  of 
the  early  township,  and  even  the  titles  of  its  officials,  are  lost 
in  a  fog  of  ambiguity  which  the  light  of  occasional  statutory 
provisions  renders  the  more  confusing.  It  is  much  to  be 
desired  that  a  comprehensive  review  of  all  the  extant  material 
on  the  subject  should  be  made.1 

Somewhat  less  obscurity  surrounds  the  erection  of  the 
counties  and  the  early  years  of  Germantown  borough,2  but 
the  political  history  of  Philadelphia  from  1682  to  1701  is 


1  It  cannot  be  denied  that  some  features  of  a  democratic  town  organi 
zation  did  exist  in  Pennsylvania.  A  town  book  of  Darby,  1682-1804,  is 
extant,  which  shows  a  communal  activity  in  the  election  of  officials  and 
the  making  of  by-laws  which  savors  strongly  of  New  England  practice. 
(See  transcript  of  this  volume  in  the  Historical  Society  of  Pennsyl 
vania.)  The  phrase  town  meeting  was  sometimes  used  with  reference 
to  the  gathering  of  the  people  for  elective  purposes.  Certain  returns  of 
elections  of  town  constables  and  overseers  of  the  poor  made  to  the  Lan 
caster  County  court  show  this  use  of  the  words.  The  township  of  Bartt 
elected  their  candidates  "by  a  towns  meeting;"  in  another  case  the 
wording  is  "  The  township  of  derry  Being  met  they  chuse  Adam  Bame 
and  John  fleming  or  either  of  them  to  serve  as  Constabel  for  the  En 
suing  year  Chosen  by  us."  In  other  returns  the  election  is  said  to  be 
by  the  "freeholders,"  or  by  the  "inhabitants."  (See  the  MS.  returns 
bound  up  with  "  Lancaster  County  Court  Papers,  1752-1782,"  folios 
141-171,  in  Historical  Society  of  Pennsylvania.) 

2 1680-1691. 


294     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

almost  a  blank.1  In  glancing  at  some  variations  of  the  local 
suffrage  from  the  normal  we  cannot  make  a  study  of  local 
institutions,  but  must  content  ourselves  with  a  few  references 
to  the  statutory  provisions  on  the  franchise. 

By  the  king's  charter  to  Penn  the  proprietor  was  given 

"  free  and  absolute  power  to  Divide  the  said  Countrey,  and  Islands, 
into  Townes,  Hundreds  and  Counties,  and  to  erect  and  incorporate 
Townes  into  Borroughs,  and  Borroughs  into  Citties,  and  to  make  and 
Constitute  ffaires  and  Markets  therein,  with  all  other  convenient  privil- 
ledges  and  immunities  according  to  the  merit  of  the  inhabitants  and  the 
ffitness  of  the  places." 

It  further  provided  that  Penn  should  have  authority  to  erect 
manors  and  establish  upon  them  courts-baron  and  view  of 
frankpledge. 

We  need  not  here  examine  the  details  of  the  survey  of 
Penn's  "great  town/'2  for  these  early  acts  are  of  an  agra 
rian  rather  than  a  political  nature.  On  March  24,  1681-2, 
Penn  gave  a  charter  to  a  "  Free  Society  of  Traders"  who 
were  privileged  upon  their  lands  to  establish  a  manor  by  the 
name  of  Frank,  and  to  hold  courts  of  general  sessions,  courts- 
baron  and  -leet  and  view  of  frankpledge.3  According  to 
the  constitution  adopted  by  this  society,  a  plural  system  of 
voting  was  to  be  put  in  force.4  Pemrs  frame  of  1682,  the 
laws  made  in  England,  and  the  Great  Law  of  December, 
1682,  neglect  the  whole  subject  of  local  government,  with 
the  exception  of  provisions  for  court  procedure.  Apparently, 
the  counties  of  Philadelphia,  Chester,  and  Bucks  in  the  prov 
ince,  and  of  Newcastle,  Kent,  and  Sussex  in  the  territories 
were  erected  shortly  after  Penn's  arrival  in  the  province;5 
for  we  see  the  county  organization  sufficient  by  November 
1 8,  1682,  to  warrant  the  proprietor  in  sending  writs  to  sher 
iffs  in  six  counties  directing  the  election  of  seven  assembly 
men  in  each  county.6 

1  See  Allinson  and  Penrose,  Phila.,  xlv~7  ;  Penna.  Magazine  of  History 
and  Biography,  XV,  344 ;    XVIII,  419. 

2  Hazard,  Annals,  528,  594,  etc.  3  Ibid.,  541-550. 

4  Ibid.,  552 ;  Hazard,  Register  of  Penna.,  I,  394. 

5  Ibid.,  605. 

9  Ibid.,  603 ;  but  see  also  Charter  and  Laivs,  Appendix,  472-3 ;  Votes, 
I,  I,  1-3- 


The  Suffrage  in  Pennsylvania.  295 

In  the  somewhat  voluminous  legislation  of  March,  1682-3, 
and  the  two  succeeding  years,  many  details  of  local  adminis 
tration  were  given  over  to  the  county  courts,  including  the 
levying  of  county  taxes,  the  laying  out  of  roads  to  public 
landings,  and  the  appointment  of  viewers  of  pipe-staves, 
overseers  of  highways,  and  viewers  of  fences.1  There  is 
only  one  provision  for  the  election  of  local  officers,  which 
is  in  Chapter  88  of  the  laws  of  1692-3,  requiring  each 
town  to  choose  one  or  two  able  persons  to  weigh  bread  ex 
posed  for  sale.2  No  definition  is  given  of  the  word  town, 
nor  of  electors  therein.  It  may  be  that  town  meant  no  more 
than  a  populous  locality,  and  the  subsequent  use  of  the  term 
would  seem  to  justify  this  theory.3 

The  sheriffs  and  coroners  by  the  frame  of  1682  were  to 
be  appointed  by  the  proprietor  in  the  first  instance;4  but 
by  the  frame  of  1683,  sheriffs,  coroners,  and  justices  of  the 
peace  were  to  be  appointed  by  the  governor  from  a  double 
nomination  made  by  the  assembly.5  The  new  charter  of 
1701  placed  the  election  of  the  sheriffs  and  coroners  in  the 
hands  of  the  freemen  of  the  respective  counties,  who  should 
select  a  double  number  of  candidates  for  those  offices.6  From 
this  time  down  to  the  Revolution,  county  officials  were 
elected  by  those  qualified  to  vote  for  representatives,7  and 
although  attempts  at  voting  were  occasionally  made  by  per- 

1  Charter  and  Laws,  133,  136,  139,  146,  178. 

3  Ibid.,  135- 

3  See  the  use  of  the  word  in  acts  of  May  10,  1698,  Charter  and  Laws, 
276,  and  of  November  27,  1700,  Statutes  at  Large,  II,  65-68.  Seven 
towns  are  named:  Bristol,  Philadelphia,  Germantown,  Darby,  Chester, 
Newcastle,  and  Lewes ;  of  which  it  is  believed  that  only  two,  Philadel 
phia  and  Germantown,  had  received  any  corporate  power  at  this  time. 
Yet  Darby  was  holding  regular  meetings. 

*  Charter  and  Laws,  97. 

'  Ibid.,  159. 

8  Poore,  Charters  and  Constitutions,  II,  1538. 

1  Charters  and  Laws,  256;  Statutes  at  Large,  II,  34,  272;  III,  138; 
IV,  10,  77,  331.  An  act  of  March  9,  1771  (Paw.  Laws,  p.  112),  permitted 
all  freeholders  to  vote  for  freeholders  to  audit  the  accounts  of  the  over 
seers  of  the  poor.  This  may  have  been  an  extension  of  the  suffrage 
similar  to  that  mentioned  in  the  townships,  since  it  neglected  the  fifty 
acres  limitation. 


296     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

sons  not  so  qualified,  yet  the  legislature  by  increasingly  strict 
laws  prevented  their  interference. 

In  the  townships  the  officers  were  often  appointed  by  the 
county  court,  or,  where  elective,  the  suffrage  qualifications 
were  apparently  the  same  as  those  for  electors  of  higher  offi 
cers.  Only  one  case  has  been  found  where  the  township, 
suffrage  differed  expressly  from  the  provincial  suffrage. 
This  is  in  a  law  providing  for  the  erection  of  pounds  in  each 
township  which  directed  that  the  election  of  a  pound-keeper 
should  be  by  those  who  are  "  owners  or  possessors  of  land" 
in  each  township.1  This  law,  like  the  case  mentioned  in  a 
previous  note,  by  removing  the  fifty  acres  qualification,  must 
have  given  the  suffrage  to  small  freeholders. 

Pennsylvania,  like  many  other  colonies,  possessed  the  local 
unit  called  the  borough.  Four  places  received  borough  char 
ters  during  the  colonial  period,  namely,  Germantown,  1689; 
Chester,  1701;  Bristol,  1720;  Lancaster,  1742.2  Of  these, 
Germantown  alone  was  constituted  a  close  corporation  with 
out  any  popular  elections ;  a  reason,  perhaps,  why  the  char 
ter  was  permitted  to  lapse  by  non-user  in  1 7o6.3  The  char 
ters  of  Chester,  Bristol,  and  Lancaster  show  strong  similari 
ties  to  one  another,  and  all  of  them  contain  provisions  for 
popular  elections,  and  even  seem  to  permit  popular  town 
meetings.4  These  charters  established  a  new  class  of  voters 

1  Statutes  at  Large,  IV,  116,  May  10,  1729. 

"  There  is  some  proof  that  Philadelphia  had  a  borough  organization 
before  1691,  but  almost  nothing  is  known  of  this  government;  Allinson 
and  Penrose,  Philadelphia,  4. 

3  See  charter  in  Pa.  Archives,  I,  111-115.     For  description,  see  W.  P. 
Holcomb,  Pennsylvania  Boroughs,  J.  H.  Univ.  Studies,  IV,  158. 

4  See  Chester  charter  in  J.  H.  Martin,  History  of  Chester,  111-113; 
Bristol,  in  Hazard,  Register  of  Penna.,  Ill,   312-314;    Lancaster,   in 
Mombert,  History  of  Lancaster  County,  Appendix,  141-146.     For  bor 
oughs  in  general,  see  Holcomb,  op.  cit.    The  following  extracts  will  give 
an  idea  of  the  provisions  for  popular  elections  and  town  meetings : 

"  And  we  do  ...  grant  full  power  and  authority  for  the  Bur 
gesses,  Constables,  assistants  and  freeholders,  together  with 
such  inhabitants,  housekeepers  within  the  said  borough,  as  shall 
have  resided  therein  at  least  for  the  space  of  one  whole  year 
next  preceding  any  such  election  as  is  herein  after  directed,  and 
hired  a  house  and  ground  within  the  said  borough  of  the  yearly 


The  Suffrage  in  Pennsylvania.  297 

in  borough  elections  by  extending  the  suffrage  to  house 
holders  as  well  as  freeholders.  In  the  first  two  charters, 
those  of  Chester  and  Bristol,  the  word  householder  is  un 
defined  and  unlimited;  but  in  Lancaster  the  power  of  par 
ticipation  in  elections  was  given  to  the  freeholders,  and  t^ 
the  "  inhabitants,  housekeepers  within  the  said  borough,  '\ 
who  had  resided  in  the  borough  one  year  before  the  election 
and  who  rented  a  house  and  ground  of  the  annual  rental 
of  five  pounds  or  upwards. 

A  similar  advance  in  definition  was  made  in  the  term 
town  meeting,  which  in  Chester  and  Bristol  passed  without 
comment,  but  in  Lancaster  is  to  be  composed  of  the  "  inhabi 
tants."  These  provisions  of  the  borough  charters  are  of 
interest  because  they  give  us  the  closest  approximation  to 
democracy  which  was  made  by  the  province  of  Pennsylvania. 
Mr.  Holcomb  has  written  of  the  political  activities  of  one 
of  these  boroughs,1  but  the  part  of  the  town  meeting  in  all 
three  might  with  profit  be  made  the  subject  of  further  study. 
The  town  meeting  feature  reminds  us  of  New  England  prac 
tice,  while  the  householder  suffrage  is  remarkably  similar 
to  that  in  use  in  many  of  the  English  boroughs. 

Philadelphia  possessed  a  more  restricted  suffrage  than  the 
boroughs,  and  she  lacked  altogether  the  town  meeting  which 
was  their  peculiar  political  feature.  The  charter  of  I6QI,2 
of  somewhat  doubtful  authenticity,  and  that  of  1701  3  both 
erected  a  municipality  in  which  popular  suffrage  played  no 
part.  The  mayor,  recorder,  eight  aldermen,  and  twelve  com 
mon  councilmen  formed  a  close  corporation,  with  power  to 

value  of  five  pounds  or  upwards"  to  hold  annual  election  on 
September  15  for  above  officers. 

"  And  it  shall  and  may  be  lawful  for  the  said  burgesses,  high 
constables  and  assistants  for  the  time  being  to  assemble  town 
meetings  as  often  as  they  shall  find  occasion :  At  which  meet 
ings  they  may  make  such  ordinances  and  rules,  not  repugnant 
to,  or  inconsistent  with  the  laws  of  the  said  province,  as  to  the 
greatest  part  of  the  inhabitants  shall  seem  necessary  and  con 
venient  for  the  good  government  of  the  said  Borough." 

1  Bristol,  op.  cit. 

2  Allinson  and  Penrose,  Phila.,  xlvii-lii. 

*A  Collection  of  Charters  and  Other  Publick  Acts  relating  to   the 
Province  of  Pennsylvania.     B.  Franklin,  Philadelphia,  1740,  35-42. 


298     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

fill  vacancies  in  their  own  number  and  to  elect  annually  a 
mayor  from  among  themselves.1  Although  the  charter  men 
tioned  no  popular  election  except  for  the  county  officers  and 
coroner,  yet  it  stated  the  qualification  of  electors  and  elected 
as  laid  down  in  the  law  of  1700.  Subsequently,  when  the 
functions  of  the  municipal  authorities  were  found  inade 
quate,  the  legislature,  instead  of  increasing  their  authority, 
diverted  a  portion  of  municipal  administration  to  elective 
or  appointive  boards.  In  the  cases  where  these  officials  were 
elective,  it  is  believed  that  the  qualification  was  always  iden 
tical  with  that  for  electors  of  representatives,2  the  description 
usually  being  "  those  of  the  inhabitants  and  freeholders  of 
the  said  city  who  are  qualified  to  elect  and  be  elected  to  the 
assembly." 

Still  another  type  of  municipality  starting  in  the  colonial 
period  of  Pennsylvania  history  was  to  furnish  a  model  for  a 
number  of  strange  municipal  corporations  which  grew  up 
around  the  city  of  Philadelphia.  Penn's  plot  for  the  city 
contained  only  eighteen  hundred  and  twenty  acres,  which 
was  laid  out  with  about  a  mile  on  the  Delaware  front  and 
over  two  and  a  half  miles  back  to  the  Schuylkill.  Population 
centred  in  the  early  years  along  the  Delaware  and  soon  out 
grew  the  narrow  limits  set  by  the  proprietor,  while  the  back 
lots  of  the  city  were  undeveloped.  A  large  population  thus 
settled  to  the  northward  and  southward  of  the  old  city,  and 
in  these  places  there  developed  that  abnormal  municipality, 
the  incorporated  district.  The  district  had  greater  powers 
than  a  township,  it  was  somewhat  greater  and  somewhat  less 
than  a  borough,  and  it  was  inferior  to  the  city  in  dignity, 
although  often  its  political  activities  almost  paralleled  those 
of  the  city — Philadelphia.  Nine  of  these  districts,  in  addi 
tion  to  six  boroughs  and  thirteen  townships,  were  consoli 
dated  in  1854,  when  the  bounds  of  the  city  were  extended 


1  This  charter  is  even  less  popular  in  its  terms  than  that  granted  by 
Dongan  to  New  York.     See  ante;  also  Amer.   Hist.  Rev.,  VI,   702; 
N.  Y.  Col.  Laws,  I,  181-195. 

2  See  acts  of  June  7,  1712;    May  10,  1729;    May  I,  1739;    January  3, 
1742-3;    February  9,   1750-51;    August   16,    1756;    February   17,    1762; 
March  26,  1762;   May  30,  1764;   February  18,  1769;   March  9,  1771. 


The  Suffrage  in  Pennsylvania.  299 

to  those  of  the  county.1  Only  two  of  the  districts,  South- 
wark  and  Northern  Liberties,  were  erected  by  the  legislature 
in  colonial  times.  The  act  of  March  26,  1762,  gave  the 
bounds  of  the  district  of  Southwark  and  provided  for  the 
election  of  certain  officers — regulators  of  streets,  assessors, 
and  supervisors  of  streets — by  the  freeholders  and  other  in 
habitants  of  the  district  who  were  qualified  by  law  to  elect 
assemblymen.  The  act  of  March  9,  1771,  provided  for 
regulators  of  streets  in  the  Northern  Liberties,  but  it  re 
quired  their  appointment  by  the  county  commissioners  instead 
of  by  popular  election.  The  subsequent  history  of  these  dis 
tricts  belongs  to  the  commonwealth  period,  and  must  be  put 
aside  for  the  present.2 

In  conclusion,  it  may  be  said  that  the  local  suffrage  varied 
but  slightly  from  the  colonial  franchise.  In  Philadelphia 
apparently  there  was  no  variation  whatever;  in  the  towns 
and  counties  there  was  an  infrequent  substitution  of  the  gen 
eral  term  freeholder  for  the  fifty  acres  or  fifty  pounds  clause, 
while  in  the  three  boroughs  occurred  the  greatest  deviation 
by  the  inclusion  of  the  householders  within  the  voting  class. 
There  was  no  clear  demarcation  in  Pennsylvania  between 
the  rural  and  the  urban  population  as  in  New  York,  nor 
the  distinction  between  the  voting  class  in  town  affairs  and 
that  in  provincial  affairs  as  seen  in  the  New  England  cor 
porations.  Pennsylvania  was  content  with  practically  one 
test  of  the  suffrage  for  all  elections,  and  that,  as  already 
shown,  was  the  holding  of  fifty  acres  of  land  or  of  fifty 
pounds  estate;  while  outside  of  Philadelphia  the  latter  was 
so  infrequently  held  that  we  may  declare  the  suffrage,  ex 
cept  in  the  city,  to  be  based  practically  on  fifty  acres  of  free 
hold. 

1  These  districts  were   Southwark,    Northern  Liberties,   Kensington, 
Spring  Garden,  Moyamensing,  Penn,  Richmond,  West  Philadelphia,  ari"d 
Belmont. 

2  No  study  of  the  incorporated  districts  of  Philadelphia  County  has, 
so  far  as  known,  ever  been  made.     Their  organization,  powers,  and 
growth  were  remarkable,  and  deserve  a  place  in  the  history  of  our  in 
stitutions.    The  material  for  such  a  study  is  extant,  see  Report  on  the 
Public  Archives  of  the  City  and  County  of  Philadelphia,  by  Herman  V. 
Ames  and  A.  E.  McKinley,  Report  of  American  Historical  Association, 
1 901,  Vol.  II,  231-344. 


CHAPTER    XL 

THE  SUFFRAGE  IN  MASSACHUSETTS. 
I.  The  Colony  of  Massachusetts  Bay. 

The  colony  of  Massachusetts  Bay,  while  in  English  theory 
only  the  settlement  of  a  trading  company,  was  in  reality  a 
great  Puritan  commonwealth.  Its  legal  basis  is  to  be  found 
in  the  royal  charter  of  1628-9;  its  practical  strength  lay 
in  the  solidarity  of  feeling  among  the  Puritans.  These  two 
factors,  so  diverse  in  their  nature,  and  exercising  such  a 
determining  influence  upon  the  church  and  state  of  the  Puri 
tans,  were  united  in  the  fixing  of  the  qualifications  for  the 
suffrage  franchise.  The  English  corporation  principle  of 
freemanship,  established  by  the  charter,  proved  admirably 
adapted  to  the  religious  exclusiveness  which  the  Puritans 
deemed  necessary  to  the  success  of  their  state.  Under  no 
other  form  of  organization  could  their  religious  and  eccle 
siastical  ideals  have  approached  so  close  to  realization ;  and 
this  organization,  unwittingly,  the  Puritan-hater,  Charles  I., 
had  prepared  for  them.  It  will  be  well,  therefore,  before 
investigating  the  suffrage  conditions  of  the  colony,  to  notice 
the  aims  of  the  founders  in  making  their  settlement,  and  the 
terms  of  that  charter  which  they  forced  to  do  service  for  a 
state  instead  of  a  business  company. 

There  can  be  little  doubt  to-day  that  the  religious  motive 
was  the  principal  force  in  the  establishment  of  the  colony. 
The  "  Conclusions  for  New  England,"  probably  the  work 
of  John  Winthrop,  circulated  after  May,  1629,  state  that 

"  All  other  churches  of  Europe  are  brought  to  desolation,  &  or  sinnes, 
for  wch  the  Lord  beginnes  allreaddy  to  frowne  upon  us  &  to  cutte  us 
short,  doe  threatne  evill  times  to  be  comminge  upon  us,  and  whoe 
knowes,  but  that  God  hath  provided  this  place  to  be  a  refuge  for  many 
whome  he  meanes  to  save  out  of  the  generall  callamity,  &  seeinge  the 
Church  hath  noe  place  lefte  to  flie  into  but  the  wildernesse,  what  better 
300 


The  Suffrage  in  Massachusetts.  301 

worke  can  there  be,  then  to  goe  &  provide  tabernacles  &  foode  for  her 
against  she  comes  thether."  l 

The  failure  of  other  colonies,  it  was  said,  came  about  because 
their  <k  mayne  end  was  carnall  and  not  religious."  2  Win- 
throp  again,  in  his  "  Model  of  Christian  Charity,"  written 
on  board  the  Arbella,  says,— 

"  For  the  worke  wee  have  in  hand,  it  is  by  a  mutuall  consent,  through 
a  special  overvaluing  providence  and  a  more  than  ordinary  approbation 
of  ye  Churches  of  Christ,  to  seek  out  a  place  of  cohabitation  and  Con- 
sorteshipp  under  a  due  form  of  Government  both  civill  and  ecclesiasti- 
call."  3 

Said  Francis  Higginson,  the  famous  Puritan  minister,— 

"  We  do  not  go  to  New  England  as  Separatists  from  the  Church  of 
England,  though  we  cannot  but  separate  from  the  corruptions  of  it; 
but  we  go  to  practise  the  positive  part  of  the  Church  reformation,  and. 
to  propagate  the  Gospel  in  America."  * 

From  their  words  at  this  early  stage,  as  well  as  their  acts 
later,  it  is  plain  that  the  establishment  of  a  church  discipline 
and  organization  according  to  the  prevalent  principles  of 
Puritanism  was  the  dominant  motive  for  the  founding  of 
the  colony. 

To  the  group  of  persons  thus  imbued  with  religious  zeal 
for  their  peculiar  faith,  Charles  I.  gave  added  strength  and 
definite  legal  standing  by<the  grant  of  a  charter  of  incor 
poration.  The  king-,  "  for  divers  good  Causes  and  consid- 
eracons,"  ,on  March  4,  1628-9,  erected  twenty-six  named 
persons,  arid  "  all  such  others  as  shall  hereafter  be  admitted 
and  made  free  of  the  Company,"  into  a  corporation  by  the 
name  of  "  The  Governor  and  Company  of  the  Mattachu- 
setts  Bay  in  Newe-England."  5  The  officers,  "  elected  and 

1  Winsor,  Memorial  History  of  Boston,  I,  105. 

2  Ellis,  The  Puritan  Age  in  Massachusetts,  48. 

3  Winsor,  Boston,  I,  142. 

4  Ellis,  op.  cit.,  55. 

5  Poore,  Charters  and  Constitutions,  I,  932-942.     The  king  confirmed 
the  land  grant  previously  made  by  the  Council  for  New  England  to  six 
of  the  incorporators. 


3O2     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

chosen  out  of  the  freemen  of  the  saide  Company"  annually, 
were  to  be  a  governor,  a  deputy-governor,  and  eighteen 
assistants.  The  officers  might  meet  monthly,  and  every 
quarter  there  was  to  be  "  one  greate  generall  and  solempe 
assemblie"  of  the  company.  These  meetings,  called  general 
courts,  were  empowered  to  admit  new  freemen ;  they  could 
elect  and  constitute  fit  officers  for  the  management  of  the 
concerns  of  the  company;  and  could  make  laws  and  ordi 
nances  "  for  the  Good  and  Welfare  of  the  saide  Company, 
and  for  the  Government  and  ordering  of  the  saide  Landes 
and  Plantacons,  and  the  People  inhabiting  and  to  inhabite 
the  same,"  with  the  restriction  that  such  laws  should  not  be 
contrary  to  the  laws  of  England.  One  further  feature  of  the 
charter  transformed  these  rules  for  the  organization  of  a 
trading  company  and  its  colony,  otherwise  so  unimportant, 
into  terms  of  the  highest  political  significance.  The  absence 
of  any  stated  meeting  place  for  the  company  is  now  believed 
to  have  been  the  result  of  conscious  endeavor  upon  the  part 
of  the  petitioners  for  a  charter.1  The  omission  of  any  place 
of  meeting  in  England  made  possible  the  holding  of  com 
pany  meetings  in  New  England,  and  brought  about  the 
identification  of  the  company  and  the  colony. 

Connecting  these  unintentionally  broad  terms  of  the  char 
ter  with  the  determined  group  of  men  who  were  to  admin 
ister  them,  it  is  apparent  that  the  charter  gives  abundant 
foundation  for  the  establishment  of  a  political  common 
wealth.  Furthermore,  the  principle  of  freemanship,  and 
the  grant  to  the  company  of  the  power  of  admitting  new 
freemen,  made  the  leaders  of  the  enterprise  hope  to  restrict 
its  membership  to  persons  who  were  in  religious  accord  with 
themselves.  Thus  the  Puritan  theocracy  was  nurtured  under 
the  very  terms  of  the  royal  charter. 

After  the  decision  to  remove  the  charter  and  the  company 
was  reached  in  the  summer  of  1629;  after  the  new  and 
more  determined  officers  had  been  elected  in  the  fall ;  after 
the  Arbella  with  the  charter  and  the  new  officers  had  ar 
rived  in  New  England; — after  these  steps  had  been  taken 
there  arose  the  question  of  the  relation  of  the  settlers  in 
America  to  the  recently  arrived  governor  and  company. 

1  Ellis,  Puritan  Age,  47;  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Proc.,  1869-1870,  172-175. 


The  Suffrage  in  Massachusetts.  303 

Up  to  this  time  the  colony  had  been  governed  by  officers 
chosen  by  the  company  in  England,  and  the  settlers  had  as 
yet  no  voice  in  their  government.  But  they  did  not  intend 
long  to  remain  disfranchised.1 

The  first  meeting  of  the  company  in  America,  held  on 
October  19,  1630,  was  made  up  of  the  freemen,  not  number 
ing  more  than  fifteen  persons,  and  the  settlers  of  the  colony, 
who  attended  as  a  matter  of  privilege  and  not  of  right. 
At  this  meeting  two  distinct  influences  appear  to  be  at  work. 
The  first  of  these  was  an  effort  to  open  the  freemanship  of 
the  company  to  many  of  the  settlers;  and  the  second,  an 
opposite  tendency  upon  the  part  of  the  leaders  of  the  enter 
prise  to  make  the  government  more  aristocratic  than  the 
terms  of  the  charter  provided.  The  two  movements  may 
have  been  connected  with  one  another,  for  the  immediate 
acceptance  into  the  freemanship  of  the  one  hundred  and 
more  persons  who  expressed  a  desire  for  it2  would  have 
outweighed  in  voting  power  the  small  number — only  fifteen 
or  twenty — of  company  freemen  who  had  actually  come  to 
America.3  The  extension  of  the  freemanship  was  appar 
ently  not  granted  at  this  time,  and  the  less  than  a  score  of 
freemen  kept  their  rare  dignity  until  the  following  spring. 
But  evidently  in  fear  of  a  sudden  extension  of  the  fran 
chise,  it  was  propounded  at  the  October  meeting  that  the 
freemen  elect  the  assistants  only,  the  latter  elect  the  governor 
Knd  deputy-governor,  and  tHat  these  officers  with  the  assist 
ants  make  laws  and  choose  all  other  officers.  The  matter 
was  submitted,  not  to  the  few  freemen  alone,  but  to  all  the 
people  assembled  to  witness  the  first  general  court  of  the 
company :  'This  was  fully  assented  vnto  by  the  genall  vote 
of  the  people,  and  ereccon  of  hands."  4  Thus  there  began 

1  Were  they  familiar  with  the  lenient  course  pursued  in  Plymouth  for 
the  admission  of  partners? 

8  Palfrey,  History  of  New  England,  I,  322 ;  Hutchinson,  History  of 
the  Colony  of  Massachuset's  Bay  (London,  1765),  I,  25,  says  109  free 
men  were  admitted  at  this  court ;  but  I  have  followed  the  inference  of 
Palfrey  that  they  only  asked  for  admission,  and  did  not  receive  it  at 
this  time. 

a  Palfrey,  I,  313,  323. 

4  Records  of  The  Governor  and  Company  of  the  Massachusetts  Bay 
in  New  England,  I,  79  (quoted  hereafter  as  Mass.  Col.  Rec.) 


304     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

that  aristocratic  tendency  which  later  developed  into  the 
attempt  to  retain  the  assistants  for  life ;  *  which  could  speak 
of  an  office  as  a  freehold,2  and  lead  to  the  establishment  of 
a  standing  life  council.3  "  Democracy/'  said  Cotton,  "  I  do 
not  conceive  that  God  ever  did  ordain  as  a  fit  Government 
either  for  Church  or  Commonwealth."  4 

In  the  spring  of  1631  occurred  the  first  annual  meeting 
of  the  court  for  elective  purposes,  and,  it  is  believed,  the 
first  admissions  of  freemen  upon  this  side  of  the  Atlantic. 
At  the  meeting  of  May  18  the  freemanship  was  conferred 
upon  one  hundred  and  eighteen  persons.5  But  by  far  the 
most  noted  action  of  the  court  at  this  session  was  the  adop 
tion  of  a  rule  requiring  all  persons  admitted  to  the  freeman- 
ship  in  the  future  to  be  church  members.  Of  the  more  than 
a  hundred  new  freemen  made  at  this  court,  it  has  been  esti 
mated  that  at  least  one-half — perhaps  three-quarters — were 
members  of  some  church.6  But,  not  satisfied  with  this  pro 
portion,  the  leaders  of  the  Puritan  experiment  adopted  for 
the  future  a  definite  religious  test: 

"And  to  the  end  the  body  of  the  comons  may  be  pserued  [pre 
served]  of  honest  &  good  men,  it  was  likewise  ordered  and  agreed  that 
for  time  to  come  noe  man  shalbe  admitted  to  the  freedome  of  this  body 
polliticke,  but  such  as  are  members  of  some  of  the  churches  within  the 
lymitts  of  the  same."  7 

It  is  likely  that  the  recent  demands  for  admission  to  the 
freemanship  had  aroused  the  founders  of  the  movement  to 
the  danger  which  might  come  to  their  ecclesiastical  ideals 
if  those  who  were  not  church  members  should  get  a  voice 

1  Mass.  Col.  Rec.,  I,  87. 

2  Winthrop,   The  History  of  New  England  from  1630  to  1649   (ed. 
Savage,  1853),  I,  132. 

3  Mass.  Col.  Rec.,  I,  167,  264;   Winthrop,  I,  302. 

4  Winsor,  Memorial  History  of  Boston,  I,  161.     For  estimates  of  this 
aristocratic  spirit  see  Doyle,  Puritan  Colonies,  I,  103-104;    Palfrey,  I, 
322,  349 ;   Haynes,  Representation  and  Suffrage  in  Massachusetts,  Johns 
Hopkins  University  Studies,  XII,  383-385. 

5  Mass.  Col.  Rec.,  I,  366. 
'Palfrey,  I,  348,  note. 

7  Mass.  Col.  Rec.,  I,  87. 


The  Suffrage  in  Massachusetts.  305 

in  the  government.  The  picture  of  the  narrow  company 
freemanship  blossoming  out  into  a  democratic  government 
was  one  that  does  not  appear  to  have  come  to  the  originators 
of  the  plan  for  the  emigration  to  America.1  But  the  recent 
applications  for  freemanship  showed  a  breadth  of  political 
desire  which  argued  ill  for  the  ideals  of  the  company  unless 
they  were  well  guarded;  and  in  what  better  way  could 
this  be  done  than  by  limiting  the  political  power  to  members 
of  the  churches  ?  Cotton  believed  that  "  None  are  so  fit  to 
be  trusted  with  the  liberties  of  the  commonwealth  as  church- 
members  ;  for  the  liberties  of  the  freemen  of  this  common 
wealth  are  such  as  require  men  of  faithful  integrity  to  God 
and  the  state  to  preserve  the  same."  2  The  two  principal 
liberties  of  the  freemen,  he  states,  are  the  election  of  magis 
trates  and  the  choice  of  deputies.  "  Now  both  these  liberties 
are  such  as  carry  along  much  power  with  them,  either  to 
establish  or  subvert  the  commonwealth."  The  Massachu 
setts  Company  as  originally  established  had  been  a  Puritan 
enterprise,  and  when  its  charter  became  the  frame  of  gov 
ernment  of  a  state,  the  integrity  of  the  new  controlling 
forces  could  be  maintained  only  by  the  exclusion  of  non- 
Puritans.  "  The  franchise  was  not  one  dependent  upon 
social  rank,  nor  upon  pecuniary  means,  but  upon  hearty 
sympathy  and  accord  in  the  religious  intent  of  the  enter 
prise."  3 

•  Aside  from  the  inequality  inflicted  upon  open  dissenters, 
there  were,  as  Mr.  Ellis  has  pointed  out,4  evident  evil  con 
sequences  of  the  religious  qualification :  the  exclusion  of 
many  persons  of  upright  lives  who  refused  to  rise  before  the 
congregation  and  make  that  public  description  of  religious 
experience  which  was  a  prerequisite  of  church-membership, 
and  the  absence  of  any  means  for  excluding  hypocrites  who 
entered  the  church  for  selfish  and  political  reasons.  Another 
and  more  practical  source  of  irritation  lay  in  the  difficulty 
of  determining  what  constituted  church-membership.  Con- 

1  Compare  Winsor,  Memorial  History  of  Boston,  I,  161. 

2  Palfrey,  I,  345,  note. 

3  Winsor,  Boston,  I,  150. 

4  Ibid.,  151. 

20 


306     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

troversies  arose  both  over  the  meaning  of  the  word  church 
and  of  the  word  member. 

The  early  extreme  Congregationalism  l  led  to  the  intro 
duction  of  beliefs  which  differed  greatly,  or  appeared  to 
differ,  from  those  of  the  founders  of  the  colony.  Heresies, 
more  or  less  pronounced,  arose  in  many  congregations,  until 
the  churches  appeared  more  corrupt  than  the  state.2  The 
church  consequently,  as  the  source  of  citizenship,  must  be 
guarded  and  purged  by  the  authority  of  the  state;  in  self- 
protection  the  civil  authority  was  compelled  to  define  ortho 
doxy  and  make  provision  for  the  punishment  of  heresy. 
Such  a  position  was  but  the  logical  outcome  of  the  religious 
qualification  upon  the  suffrage.3  As  early  as  March  3, 
1635-6,  the  general  court  had  found  "  by  sad  experience 
that  much  trouble  and  disturbance  hath  happened  both  to 
the  church  &  civill  state  by  the  officers  &  members  of  some 
churches,  wcn  have  bene  gathered  within  the  limitts  of  this 
jurisdiccon  in  a  vndue  manner,  &  not  with  such  publique 
approbacon  as  were  meete."  4  To  avoid  such  troubles  in 
the  future  the  court  ordered  that  no  company  of  persons 
should  be  recognized  as  a  church  unless  the  approval  of  the 
magistrates  and  of  the  elders  of  the  greater  part  of  the 
churches  in  the  colony  had  first  been  obtained.  The  political 
effect  of  the  restriction  5  is  seen  in  the  further  provision 

"  that  noe  p'son,  being  a  member  of  any  churche  which  shall  hereafter 
be  gathered  without  the  approbacon  of  the  magistrates,  &  the  greater 

1  The  early  doctrine  of  the  settlers  was  that  seven  or  more  Christians 
could  by  covenant  enter  into  church  association,  taking  for  their  guide 
in  faith  and  organization  the  Bible,  and  selecting  their  own  ministers, 
who,  although  owing  their  authority  to  God,  obtained  their  official  posi 
tion  by  the  choice  of  the  congregation  (ibid.,  163). 

2  Winthrop  said  in  1637,  "  Whereas  the  way  of  God  hath  always  been 
to  gather  his  churches  out  of  ye  world,  now  ye  world,  or  civill  state, 
must  be  raised  out  of  ye  churches,"  quoted  in  Winsor,  Boston,  I,  165. 

8  Palfrey,  I,  432. 

4  Mass.  Col.  Rec.,  I,  168. 

5  On  the  other  hand,  the  religious  side  of  the  controversies  of  the 
time  is  found  in  the  eighty-two  erroneous  opinions  declared  heretical 
by  the  gathering  of  the  clergy  in   1637  at  Cambridge    (Winthrop,  I, 
284). 


The  Suffrage  in  Massachusetts.  307 

pte  of  the  said  churches,  shalbe  admitted  to  the  ffjeedome  of  this  com- 
onwealthe." 

Not  content  with  the  refusal,  for  the  future,  to  admit 
members  of  irregular  churches,  the  dominant  party  desired 
to  exclude  at  once  the  members  of  such  churches  who  were 
already  freemen.  Williams  was  exiled  and  Salem  punished 
for  accepting  him  as  minister,  but  the  Wheelwright  affair 
led  to  a  much  wider  forfeiture  of  political  rights.  Win- 
throp  says  the  general  court  found  u  upon  consultation,  that 
two  so  opposite  parties  could  not  contain  in  the  same  body, 
without  apparent  hazard  of  ruin  to  the  whole ;"  l  and  accord 
ingly,  seizing  a  slight  pretext,  the  court  proceeded  to  banish, 
disfranchise,  or  disarm  the  principal  persons  connected  with 
the  movement.2  And  to  prevent  any  further  petitions  or 
discussions  upon  the  matter,  the  court  ordered  that  the  pun 
ishment  of  disfranchisement,  fine,  imprisonment,  or  banish 
ment  could  be  inflicted  upon  any  person  "  openly  or  will 
ingly"  defaming  any  court  of  justice  or  its  proceedings  or 
magistrates.3  Temporarily,  at  least,  the  measures  for  at 
taining  religious  conformity  were  successful ;  4  the  state  had 
purified  the  ecclesiastical  source  of  citizenship ;  it  had  exer 
cised  its  "  power  and  libertie  to  see  the  peace,  ordinances  and 
Rules  of  Christ  observed  in  every  church  according  to  his 
word."5  A  definition  of  the  word  church  was  thus  ob 
tained,  which  was  made  more  precise  later  by  the  action  of 
the  Cambridge  Synod  of  1646  and  1647.°  The  meaning 
of  church-membership,  however,  was  not  determined  until 
1662,  when  the  Half-way  Covenant  was  adopted.7 

Membership  in  the  church  was  not  the  only  formal  requi 
site  for  admission  to  the  freemanship,  although  it  was, 
indeed,  the  greatest  practical  limitation  upon  the  suffrage. 
The  church-member  who  desired  to  participate  in  the  politi- 

1I,  244. 

1  Mass.  Col.  Rec.,  I,  205-211. 
8  Ibid.,  212-213. 

4  See  Palfrey,  I,  505-511,  for  a  justification  of  the  course  of  Massa 
chusetts  towards  the  Antinomians. 

6  Mass.  Body  of  Liberties  of  1641,  section  58. 
'Winthrop,  II,  264,  269,  etc.;    Palfrey,  II,  170-187. 

7  See  post. 


308     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

cal  life  of  town  or  colony  must  be  proposed  to  the  general 
court  or  some  special  court,  and  by  that  body  be  formally 
admitted  as  a  freeman,1  and  before  acceptance  he  was  com 
pelled  to  take  an  oath  of  fidelity  to  the  Company.  Freeman- 
ship  did  not  follow  ex  officio  from  the  relation  of  church- 
membership.  Indeed,  it  is  quite  apparent  that  many  mem 
bers  of  the  church  did  not  desire  the  freemanship;  being 
willing,  perhaps,  to  forfeit  their  political  rights  in  order  to 
be  freed  from  the  duties  of  freemen.  In  1643  tne  churches 
were  instructed  to  deal  with  their  members  who  refused  to 
"  take  their  freedom ;"  2  a  few  months  later  we  learn  of  such 
a  "defect"  of  freemen  at  Marblehead  that  the  general  court 
authorized  the  choice  of  a  non-freeman  for  constable.3  In 
1647  the  court  found  that  there  were  "  many  membrs  of 
churches,  who,  to  exempt  ymselves  from  all  publike  service 
in  ye  comon  wealth,  will  not  come  in  to  be  made  freemen."  4 
Accordingly,  all  church-members,  non-freemen  as  well  as 
freemen,  were  rendered  liable  for  service  in  town  offices  and 
as  jurymen,  and  placed  under  the  penalty  of  a  fine  for 
refusing  to  accept  such  positions.  It  is  thus  quite  apparent 
that  many  churchmen  were  not  members  of  the  political 
corporation. 

Not  always  was  the  formal  process  of  admitting  freemen 
retained  by  the  general  court.  In  1641  the  right  was  given 
to  "  every  Court  within  this  Jurisdiction  where  two  Magis 
trates  are  present,"  to  admit  as  freemen  "  any  Church  Mem 
bers,  that  are  fit  to  be  Freemen,"  giving  them  the  oath  and 
certifying  their  names  to  the  secretary  at  the  next  general 
court.5  For  about  twenty  years  the  county  courts  exercised 
this  right;  but  in  1664  the  power  was  revoked  and  admis 
sions  for  the  future  were  to  be  made  by  the  general  court 
alone.6  In  addition  to  granting  this  authority  for  a  time 

lMass.  Col.  Rec.,  I,  117.  'Ibid.,  II,  38. 

9 Ibid.,  II,  57.  'Ibid.,  208. 

5  The  General  Laws  and  Liberties  of  the  Massachusetts  Colony  (1672), 
38;    Ernst,  Constitutional  History  of  Boston,  16. 

6  Code  of  1672,  56;    Mass.  Col  Rec.,  IV,  Part  II,  118.     It  is  to  be 
noted,  however,  that  the  revisers  of  the  laws  in  1672,  although  printing 
the  repealing  act  of  1664,  yet  permitted  the  clause  of  1641  to  stand  on 
another  page  of  their  revised  code. 


The  Suffrage  in  Massachusetts.  309 

to  county  courts,  the  general  courts  occasionally  delegated 
to  individuals  the  right  of  accepting  freemen  and  adminis 
tering  to  them  the  oath  of  fidelity.  In  1647  "  Mr  Pinchin" 
was  authorized  "  to  make  freemen  in  the  towne  of  Spring- 
feild,  of  those  that  are  in  covenant  &  live  according  to  their 
p'fession ;"  l  and  in  the  same  manner  the  commissioners 
sent  by  the  court  to  obtain  the  submission  of  the  Maine  set 
tlements  were  empowered  to  admit  freemen  and  give  the 
necessary  oaths.2  These  settlements  were  so  distant  from 
Boston  that  there  could  be  no  hope  of  having  the  inhabitants 
appear  personally  before  the  general  court.  In  all  other 
cases,  except  during  the  period  1641  to  1664,  the  general 
court  alone  exercised  the  right  of  admitting  freemen  to  the 
company. 

An  oath  to  be  administered  to  all  freemen  had  been  pre 
scribed  before  i634;3  in  April  of  that  year  the  assistants 
ordained  an  inhabitants'  oath  to  be  taken  by  all  residents 
not  enfranchised,  but  who  were  above  the  age  of  twenty 
years  and  either  householders  or  sojourners  in  the  colony.4 
In  May  a  new  freeman's  oath  was  established,  and  the  obli 
gation  of  those  who  had  taken  the  former  oath  was  made  to 
conform  with  the  obligations  imposed  by  the  new  one.5  It 

*Mass.  Col.  Rec.,  II,  224. 

''Ibid.,  IV,  Pt.  I,  122  ff. ;    128;    157;   Williamson,  History  of  the  State 
of  Maine,  I,  334~357>  39L 

3  The  date  of  the  first  form  of  freeman's  oath  is  uncertain,  Mass.  Col. 
Rec.,  I,  353- 

4  Ibid.,  115. 

5  Ibid.,  117. 

"  The  Oath  of  a  Freeman. 

"  I,  A.  B.,  being  by  Gods  providence,  an  inhabitant  &  ffree- 
man  within  the  jurisdiccon  of  this  comonweale,  doe  freely  ac 
knowledge  my  selfe  to  be  subiect  to  the  govern^  thereof,  & 
therefore  doe  heere  sweare,  by  the  greate  &  dreadfull  name 
of  the  euerlyving  God,  that  I  wilbe  true  &  faithfull  to  the  same, 
&  will  accordingly  yielde  assistance  &  support  therevnto,  with 
my  p'son  &  estate,  as  in  equity  I  am  bound,  and  will  also  truely 
indeavr  to  mainetaine  &  preserue  all  the  libertyes  &  previlidges 
thereof,  submitting  my  selfe  to  the  wholesome  lawes  &  orders 
made  &  established  by  the  same;  and  furthr,  that  I  will  not 
plott  nor  practise  any  evill  against  it,  nor  consent  to  any  that 


310     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

seems  probable  that  from  the  first  also  an  age  require 
ment  was  established  according  to  English  precedent.  In 
1641  the  Body  of  Liberties  made  one  and  twenty  years 
"  the  age  for  giving  of  votes,  verdicts,  or  Sentence  in  any 
Civill  courts."  1  Admission  to  the  freemanship  at  this  time, 
therefore,  was  dependent  (i)  upon  age,  (2)  church-mem 
bership,  (3)  formal  proposition  to  the  general  court,  (4) 
acceptance  by  that  body  or  some  delegated  authority,  (5) 
the  taking  of  a  freeman's  oath. 

It  is  regretted  that  the  demands  of  space  will  not  allow  an 
examination  of  the  representative  system,  as  it  was  through 
the  growth  of  this  system  that  the  suffrage  was  given 
a  practical  value  to  the  outlying  settlements ;  but  the  omis 
sion  may  be  pardoned  in  view  of  the  many  accounts  of  the 
system  which  have  been  written  by  local  and  general  his 
torians.2  Reference  should  be  made,  however,  to  the  method 
of  balloting.  At  the  outset  the  Massachusetts  Company  did 
not  adopt  the  ballot  in  its  elections,  as  we  have  seen  that 
the  London  Company  did  many  years  earlier,3  but  held  its 
elections  in  London  by  "  erection  of  hands."  4  As  early  as 
1629  the  ballot  was  used  in  the  church  at  Salem,  and  shortly 
after  the  transmission  of  the  charter  to  New  England  it 
was  adopted  in  the  Company's  elections.  It  was  originally 
used  in  the  election  of  governor,  the  first  occasion  probably 
being  the  election  of  May,  1634;  5  and  in  September,  1635, 


shall  soe  doe,  but  will  timely  discover  &  reveale  the  same  to 
lawfull  authority  nowe  here  established,  for  the  speedy  pre 
venting  thereof.  Moreouer,  I  doe  solemnely  bynde  my  selfe,  in 
the  sight  of  God,  that  when  I  shalbe  called  to  giue  my  voice 
touching  any  such  matter  of  this  state,  wherein  ffreemen  are 
to  deale,  I  will  giue  my  vote  &  suffrage,  as  I  shall  iudge  in 
myne  owne  conscience  may  best  conduce  &  tend  to  the  publique 
weale  of  the  body,  without  respect  of  p'sons,  or  favr  of  any 
man.  Soe  helpe  mee  God,  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ." 

1  Body  of  Liberties,  Sect.  53. 

2  See  particularly   G.    H.    Haynes,   Representation   and   Suffrage   in 
Massachusetts,  1620-1691,  J.  H.  U.  Studies,  XII,  374-460. 

3  See  ante,  pp.  18,  22. 

*  Lechford,  Plain  Dealing,  23. 

5  In  the  margin  of  the  account  of  this  election  in  Winthrop's  history 
occur  the  words  "chosen  by  papers"  (I,  132). 


The  Suffrage  in  Massachusetts.  311 

was  extended  to  the  elections  of  deputies  to  the  general 
court.  Up  to  this  point  the  ballot  only  served  the  purpose 
of  keeping  the  freeman's  vote  a  secret  from  his  fellows;  it 
did  not  relieve  him  from  the  necessity  of  journeying  to  the 
capital  city  to  cast  his  ballot.  In  a  few  months,  however, 
the  natural  step  was  taken  of  permitting  the  freemen  to  cast 
their  votes  for  company  officers  in  their  own  towns,  and 
transmit  the  ballots  to  the  general  court  at  Boston.  This 
is  what  the  men  of  the  times  called  proxy  voting,  and 
it  differed  from  the  system  adopted  in  most  of  the  colonies 
outside  of  New  England  by  requiring  the  transmission  of 
the  actual  ballots  to  the  general  returning  body,  instead  of 
forwarding  a  mere  statement  of  the  votes  cast.  In  March, 
1635-6,  it  was  first  applied  to  six  frontier  towns  to  enable 
them  to  retain  their  freemen  at  home  "  for  the  safty  of  their 
towne."  1  In  a  contemplated  special  election  in  the  follow 
ing  December,  this  privilege  was  extended  to  any  of  the 
freemen  "  if  they  thinke  not  fit  to  come  in  p'son."  2  In 
March,  1636-7,  the  court,  considering  "  the  greate  danger 
&  damage  that  may  accrue  to  the  state  by  all  the  freemens 
leaveing  their  plantations  to  come  to  the  place  of  elections," 
made  this  a  permanent  order,  each  freeman  having  the 
liberty  to  send  his  vote  "  by  proxie,"  and  the  town  deputies 
were  directed  to  carry  the  ballots  (proxies)  to  the  meeting 
of  the  general  court.3  In  1640  and  the  following  year  a 
somewhat  reactionary  spirit  is  seen  from  the  democratic 
method  of  "  proxing."  The  candidates  for  magistrates  were 
to  be  nominated  by  the  deputies  and  the  freemen  merely 
given  the  right  to  choose  among  the  nominees ; 4  but  this 
order  was  limited  to  one  year  and  apparently  was  not  ex 
tended.  In  1641  the  court  proposed  a  true  proxy  system 
of  indirect  voting,  according  to  which  the  several  towns 
were  to  choose  one  elector  for  each  ten  freemen,  and  these 
electors  in  turn  were  to  make  the  elections ; 5  but  this  was 

*Mass.  Col.  Rec.,  I,  166. 

2  Ibid.,  185.    Vane  having  been  prevailed  upon  to  remain  in  the  colony, 
the  election  did  not  take  place  (Winthrop,  I,  207-208). 

8 Ibid.,  188.     In  1639  the  freeman's  choice  in  election  between  "per 
son  or  by  proxie"  was  more  definitely  stated  (ibid.,  277). 
.,  293.  *Ibid.,  333. 


312     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

not  satisfactory  to  the  freemen,  and  no  action  was  taken 
upon  it.  The  method  of  sending  to  Boston  the  ballots  or 
proxies  of  those  who  did  not  attend  the  court  of  elections 
in  person  was  continued  thereafter  with  but  slight  change 
until  the  surrender  of  the  charter.  After  1643  tne  votes 
for  assistants,1  but  not  for  the  other  officers,  were  given  in 
"  Indian  beanes,  the  white  beanes  to  manifest  election,  the 
black  for  blanks."  2  Later,  an  attempt  was  made  to  do  away 
altogether  with  the  personal  attendance  of  freemen  at  the 
election,  and  permit  the  voting  only  by  papers  and  corn  and 
beans  in  the  several  towns.  This  proved  unpopular,3  and 
in  November,  1647,  ^  was  changed  slightly  so  that  none 
should  "  deliver  in  their  votes  at  ye  dores"  of  the  general 
court  except  those  who  w^re  made  free  upon  election  day.4 
In  1663,  when  the  admission  of  freemen  upon  election  day 
was  prohibited,  it  was  again  ordered  that  none  should  cast 
their  votes  personally  "at  Boston  except  members  of  the 
general  court.5  But  again  the  freemen  showed  their  desire 
to  attend  personally,  and  within  a  year  the  law  was  repealed.6 
From  this  time  onwarS  the  freeman  could  attend  the  general 
court  of  election  in  person  or  he  could  send  his  paper  ballot 
for  the  officers,  andjcorn  and  beans  for  the  assistants.7 

We  must  now  notice  the  size  of  the  disfranchised  class 
under  the  church^nembership  restriction,  and  shall  trace 
the  agitation  for.  an  extended  suffrage  until  that  question 
was  taken  up  by  'the  king  himself,  and  English  authority 
was  brought  to  bear  upon  obstinate  Massachusetts.  Among 

1  Many  different  plans  for  the  nomination  and  election  of  assistants 
were  tried  (see  Haynes,  op.  cit.,  400-405). 

2  Mass.  Col.  Rec.,  II,  42.    The  code  of  1660  (p.  29)  provided  that  "  the 
freemen  shall  use  Indian  Corn  &  Beanes,  the  Indian  Corn  to  manifest 
Election,  the  Beanes  contrary." 

3  Winthrop,  II,  311. 

4  Mass.  Col.  Rec.,  II,  220. 
6  Ibid.,  IV,  Pt.  II,  86. 

6  Ibid.,  134. 

7  The  order  of  1663  is  interesting  also  because  it  permitted  a  freeman 
to  vote  in  his  town  without  attending  personally  at  the  election.     He 
could  "  send  his  vote,  sealed  vp,  in  a  note  directed  to  the  deputy  or 
tounsmen."    An  act  of  1738  required  personal  attendance  (Session  Laws, 
681-683). 


The  Suffrage  in  Massachusetts.  313 

the  one  hundred  and  eighteen  admitted  at  the  first  court 
of  election  in  1631  we  have  noticed  that  fully  one-half  were 
members  of  the  church;  but  the  new  religious  qualification 
soon  led  to  the  exclusion  of  more  than  one-half  of  the_adwlt 
males.  Among  recent  writers  we  have  such  expressions  as, 
*'  At  no  period  were  the  freemen  any  considerable  proportion 
of  the  population;"  1  and  "  the  number  of  freemen  appears 
to  have  been  from  one-twentieth  to  one-tenth  of  the  popula 
tion."  Lechford,  writing  as  early  as  1640,  asserts  that 
three-fourths  of  the  people  were  not  members  of  the  church 
and  consequently  not  eligible  for  the  freemanship.3  A  better 
idea  of  the  extent  of  the  franchise  can  be  gained  by  com 
paring  the  number  of  arrivals  in  the  colony  with  the  actual 
admissions  to  the  freedom  of  the  company.  Hutchinson4 
estimates  that  by  the  year  1640  the  immigrants  numbered 
about  21,200  persons.  During  the  same  period  1148  per 
sons  were  admitted  as  freemen,5  or  about  one  person  in  every 
twenty  who  entered  the  limits  of  the  colony.  Taking  the 
adult  males  at  one-fifth  of  the  population,  these  figures 
would  seem  to  bear  out  Lechford's  estimate  previously 
given.  Naturally  such  a  restriction,  in  a  new  country  where 
actual  social  and  economic  equality  was  more  closely  ap 
proximated  than  in  England,  would  lead  to  discontent 
among  the  disfranchised  and  agitation  for  an  extension  of 
the  suffrage.  The  disfranchised  classes  at  first  appear 
through  their  occasional  illegal  action  at  elections.  At 
times  they  cast  ballots  in  the  elections ; 6  at  other  times  they 
were  even  chosen  by  the  freemen  to  serve  as  deputies ;  7  and 
in  1643  the  general  court  was  compelled  to  order  the  inflic 
tion  of  a  fine  of  ten  pounds  upon  non-freemen  who  took 
part  in  elections,  as  well  as  upon  freemen  who  cast  more 

1  Weeden,  in  Amer.  Antiquarian  Society  Proceedings,  2d  Series,  IX, 
348. 

2  Ernst,  Constitutional  History  of  Boston,  17. 
8  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.,  3d  Series,  III,  73- 

4  History,  I,  93. 

5  See  lists  of  freemen  in  Mass.  Col.  Rec.,  I,  366-379;    New  England 
Historical  and  Genealogical  Register,  III,  passim. 

"Mass.  Col.  Rec.,  I,  221 ;    IV,  Pt.  I,  93;    147- 
7  Ibid.,  I,  174;    IV,  Pt.  I,  263. 


314     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

than  the  legal  number  of  ballots.1  By  1640  Lechford  in 
liis  ex  partc  statements  could  claim  that  "  the  most  of  the 
persons  at  New-England  are  not  admitted  of  their  Church 
and  therefore  are  not  Freemen ;"  2  "  the  people  begin  to 
complain,  they  are  ruled  like  slaves;"3  and  "it  is  feared, 
that  Elections  cannot  be  safe  there  long,  either  in  Church  or 
Common-wealth/'  The  growing  strength  of  the  feeling  in 
favor  of  the  disfranchised  class  is  seen  in  the  proposition 
made  in  the  general  court  in  March,  1643-4,  "  for  yielding 
some  more  of  the  freeman's  privileges  to  such  as  were  no 
church  members  that  should  join  in  this  government." 4 
But  the  proposal  came  to  naught  "  for  want  of  opportunity 
of  meeting,  etc."  5  Later  in  the  same  year  the  opposition 
of  the  ruling  parties  to  the  non-freemen  is  seen  in  the 
strange  refusal  of  the  magistrates  to  publish  their  reasons 
for  opposing  a  standing  council  proposed  by  the  deputies.6 
Rather  than  gain  popularity  among  the  disfranchised 
classes,  although  they  were  largely  in  the  majority,  the 
magistrates  were  willing  to  have  their  actions  misunder 
stood  by  the  whole  community. 

Two  years  later,  in  1646,  the  claims  of  the  non-free  were 
taken  up  by  a  group  of  agitators  who  desired  to  overthrow 
the  ecclesiastical  basis  of  the  state  and  the  extreme  Congre 
gationalism  of  the  churches,  and  be  "  wholly  governed  by 
the  laws  of  England."  7  A  plan  was  laid  for  the  presenta 
tion  of  petitions  to  the  general  courts  both  of  Plymouth  and 
Massachusetts,8  and  for  an  appeal  to  the  houses  of  Parlia 
ment  if  the  demands  should  not  be  granted  in  New  England. 

1  Mass.  Coll.  Rec.,  II,  48. 

2  Plain  Dealing,  p.  23,  in  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.,  3d  Series,  III. 

3  Ibid.,  39- 
4Wirithrop,  II,  160. 

*  Ibid.  Unfortunately,  we  are  not  informed  what  were  the  reasons 
included  in  the  "  etc." 

0  They  feared  that  such  a  publication  "  would  cause  a  public  breach 
throughout  the  country,"  and  that  the  "  non-members  would  certainly 
take  part  with  the  magistrates  (we  should  not  be  able  to  avoid  it),  and 
this  would  make  us  and  our  cause,  though  never  so  just,  obnoxious  to 
the  common  sort  of  freemen"  (Winthrop,  II,  170-171). 

7  Winthrop,  II,  261.  8  Hutchinson,  History,  I,  145. 


The  Suffrage  in  Massachusetts.  315 

The  petitioners  to  the  Massachusetts  court  in  May,  1646, 
while  expressing  their  desire  for  a  government  according 
to  the  laws  of  England,  yet  aver  that  they  cannot  discern 
such  a  form  to  be  in  existence  in  Massachusetts  in  spite  of 
the  terms  of  the  charter  and  the  character  of  the  settlers  as 
Englishmen.  They  continue, — 

"  Whereas  there  are  many  thousands  in  these  plantations,  of  the 
English  nation,  freeborne,  quiett  and  peaceable  men,  righteous  in  their 
dealings,  forward  with  hand,  heart  and  purse,  to  advance  the  publick 
good,  knowne  friends  to  the  honorable  and  victorious  Houses  of  Parlia 
ment,  lovers  of  their  nation,  &c.,  who  are  debarred  from  all  civill  im- 
ployments  (without  any  just  cause  that  we  know)  not  being  permitted 
to  bear  the  least  office  (though  it  cannot  be  denyed  but  some  are  well 
qualifyed)  no  not  so  much  as  to  have  any  vote  in  choosing  magistrates, 
captains  or  other  civill  and  military  officers ;  notwithstanding  they  have 
here  expended  their  youth,  borne  the  burden  of  the  day,  wasted  much 
of  their  estates  for  the  subsistence  of  these  poore  plantations,  paid  all 
assessments,  taxes,  rates,  at  least  equall,  if  not  exceeding  others." 

Therefore  the  petitioners  request  that 

"  civil  liberty  and  freedom  be  forthwith  granted  to  all  truly  English, 
equall  to  the  rest  of  their  countrymen,  as  in  all  plantations  is  accus 
tomed  to  be  done,  and  as  all  freeborne  enjoy  in  our  native  country."1 

The  petitioners,  most  of  whom  were  Presbyterians,  also 
desired  that  members  of  the  Church  of  England  2  or  Scot 
land  should  be  admitted  to  the  communion  of  the  New  Eng 
land  churches ;  or,  if  these  civil  and  religious  privileges 
were  refused  them,  that  they  should  be  freed  from  the 
heavy  taxes  imposed  upon  them.  Should  they  fail  of  redress 
in  America,  the  signers  of  the  petition  threatened  to  appeal 
to  Parliament,  who  would,  they  hoped,  "  take  their  sad 
condition  into  consideration."  Their  closing  sentiments, 
together  with  this  threat,  were  not  likely  to  gain  for  the 

1  Hutchinson,  A  Collection  of  Original  Papers  Relative  to  the  His 
tory  of  the  Colony  of  Massachusetts-Bay,   Prince  Society  Reprint,  I, 
218-219;    Hutchinson,  History,  I,  145-147. 

2  It  will  be  remembered  that  at  this  time  Presbyterianism  was  by  act 
of  Parliament  the  lawful  religion  of  England. 


316     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

petitioners  the  desired  rights;  in  case  their  prayer  should 
be  granted,  they  expressed  the  hope  of  seeing 

"the  then  contemned  ordinances  of  God  highly  prized;  the  gospel, 
then  dark,  break  forth  as  the  sun ;  Christian  charity,  then  frozen,  wax 
warm;  jealousy  of  arbitrary  government  banished;  strife  and  con 
tention  abated ;  and  all  business  in  church  and  state,  which  for  many 
years  had  gone  backward,  successfully  thriving."  * 


Means  were  taken  by  the  leaders  of  the  movement  to 
spread  copies  of  their  petition  throughout  the  colony,  in 
neighboring  provinces,  and  even  to  as  distant  places  as  the 
Dutch  settlements,  Virginia,  and  the  Bermudas.2  Support 
was  found,  we  are  told,  mainly  among  the  weaker  classes. 
Young  men  and  women  "  are  taken  with  it,"  3  and  those 
"  of  a  linsey-woolsey  disposition ;  some  for  prelacy,  some 
for  Presbytery,  and  some  for  Plebsbytery,  but  all  joined 
together  in  the  thing  they  would,  which  was  to  stir  up  the 
people  to  dislike  of  the  present  government."  4  Later  a 
petition  addressed  to  Parliament  was  drawn  up  and  signed 
by  twenty-five  non- freemen  for  themselves  and  "  many 
thousands  more."  5 

In  a  community  where  such  severe  measures  had  been 
taken  against  the  Antinomians  and  other  dissenters ;  within 
a  body  of  men  who  had  so  boldly  transferred  their  charter 
from  England,  and  who  had  recently  refused  to  relinquish 
that  charter  upon  the  demand  of  Charles  L, — in  such  a 
community  the  attitude  of  the  ruling  classes  towards  the 
petitioners  was  a  foregone  conclusion.  Formal  considera 
tion  of  the  demands  of  the  petition  was  denied  at  the  time, 
and  a  law,  already  drawn  up  and  about  to  pass,  for  allow 
ing  non-freemen  equal  participation  with  freemen  in  all 
town  affairs,  and  perhaps  imposing  a  property  qualifica 
tion  upon  voters  in  colonial  elections,  was  also  deferred 

1Hutchinson,  History,  I,  147. 
2  Palfrey,  II,  168. 

3Hutchinson,  Papers  (Prince  Soc.),  I,  249. 

*  Palfrey,  II,  169,  note  2,  quoting  Johnson's  Wonder-Working  Provi 
dence,  202. 
6  Hutchinson,  History,  I,  147. 


The  Suffrage  in  Massachusetts.  317 

until  the  next  session  of  the  general  court.1  A  synod  of  the 
clergy,  however,  was  called  to  give  more  definite  form  to 
the  congregational  system.2  In  the  meantime  the  petition 
ers  continued  their  popular  agitation,  and  when  the  court 
met  in  the  fall  of  1646  it  was  in  a  mood  for  the  thorough 
suppression  of  the  movement. 

The  court  drew  up  a  long  reply  to  the  charges  made  in 
the  petition,  showing  by  parallel  columns  the  similarity 
between  the  English  laws  and  those  of  Massachusetts;3 
and  pointing  out  twelve  false  charges  made  in  the  petition. 
The  petitioners  were  arraigned  as  authors  of  "  diverse  false 
and  scandalous  passages  in  a  certain  paper  .  .  .  against 
the  churches  of  Christ  and  the  civil  government  here  estab 
lished,  derogating  from  the  honor  and  authority  of  the  same 
and  tending  to  sedition."  4  Later  the  petitioners  were  fined 
and  prevented  from  sailing  to  England  5  with  petitions  from 
the  non-freemen.  After  this  the  movement  gradually  sub 
sided;  the  leaders  were  disgraced  and  soon  were  scattered 
in  England  or  America.6  At  the  election  in  May,  1647, 
"  great  laboring  there  had  been  by  the  friends  of  the  peti 
tioners  to  have  one  chosen  governour,  who  favored  their 
cause.  .  .  .  but  the  mind  of  the  country  appeared  clearly, 
for  the  old  governour  was  chosen  again,  with  two  or  three 
hundred  votes  more  than  any  other."  7 

But  the  olive-branch  was  linked  with  the  sword  of  com 
pulsion  ;  the  measure  which  had  been  postponed  in  the  pre 
vious  year  was  taken  up  again,  and  while  no  change  was 
made  in  the  colony  elections,  the  proposed  extension  of  the 
suffrage  in  town  affairs  was  now  adopted  by  the  general 
court.  An  order  of  September,  1635,  had  directed  that  none 
but  freemen  should  have  a  voice  in  town  affairs,  such  as  the 
receiving  of  inhabitants  and  the  laying  out  of  town-lots ; 8 

1  Winthrop,  II,  262 ;    the  language  is  slightly  ambiguous. 

'Palfrey,  II,  170-174. 

3Hutchinson,  Papers  (Prince  Soc.),  I,  223-247;    Winthrop,  II,  284. 

4  Palfrey,  II,  175. 

8  Winthrop,  II,  291  ff. ;    Palfrey,  II,  176-178. 

8  Palfrey,  II,  179. 

TThus  modestly  does  Winthrop  refer  to  his  re-election  (II,  307). 

8  Mass.  Coll.  Rec.,  I,  161. 


318     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

but  the  court  now  took  into  its  consideration  "  ye  usefull 
ptes  &  abilities  of  divrs  inhabitants  amongst  us,  wch  are  not 
freemen."  Accordingly  the  freemen  of  the  towns  were 
empowered  to  admit  any  inhabitants,  being  non-freemen,  to 
the  privileges  of  voting  and  jury  service,  if  such  inhabitants 
had  taken  the  oath  of  fidelity  to  the  government,  had 
reached  the  age  of  twenty-four  years,  and  were  not  under 
conviction  of  evil  carriage  against  the  government  or  the 
churches.2  It  is  difficult  to  tell  how  far  the  agitation  played 
a  part  in  securing  this  concession  to  the  non-freemen.  Win- 
throp  mentions  an  apparently  wider  reform  than  this  which 
was  set  aside  in  May,  1646,  because  of  the  popular  petition,3 
and  it  seems  probable  that  the  cause  of  an  extended  suffrage 
was  injured  rather  than  advanced  by  the  popular  appeal 
which  had  been  made.  However,  the  liberty  which  was 
granted,  united  with  the  severe  measures  against  the  peti 
tioners,  appears  to  have  quieted  for  a  time  the  popular 
clamor. 

For  ten  years  the  records  do  not  show  any  determined 
effort  to  extend  the  franchise,  and  when  a  new  interest  was 
shown  the  attack  on  the  exclusiveness  of  the  freemanship 
was  not  made  upon  the  political  side,  as  it  had  been  in  1646, 
but  upon  the  ecclesiastical  side.  We  have  noticed  the  at 
tempt,  about  1636,  to  extend  the  suffrage  by  the  organiza 
tion  of  new  churches  composed  of  those  who,  on  account 
of  dissentient  vie\vs,  could  not  enter  the  regular  churches. 
The  movement  was  met  by  a  severe  method  of  regulation 
of  new  churches  and  by  the  exclusion  from  the  franchise 
of  members  of  irregularly  organized  churches.  About  1657 
a  new  attack  upon  the  stronghold  of  privilege  was  made 
through  the  effort  to  extend  the  meaning  of  the  term  church- 
member.  From  Hartford,  in  Connecticut,  there  spread  to 
the  other  colonies  a  controversy  as  to  whether  those  who 
had  been  baptized  and  still  recognized  the  obligations  of 
baptism  were  to  be  accounted  members  of  the  church,  or,  if 
church-membership  came  only  after  evidence  of  regenera 
tion,  acceptance  of  the  applicant  by  the  congregation,  and 

1  Mass.  Coll.  Rec.,  II,  197  (general  court  of  May  26,  1647). 

2  Ibid.  3Ibid.,  11,262. 


The  Suffrage  in  Massachusetts.  319 

continuance  in  full  communion  with  the  church.1  A  synod 
of  Massachusetts  and  Connecticut  ministers  meeting  in  Bos 
ton  in  June,  1657,  permitted  what  was  called  the  Half- Way 
Covenant.  Baptized  persons,  recognizing  their  obligations 
and  being  of  good  character,  were  permitted  to  bring  their 
children  to  baptism;  but  the  baptized  were  not  admitted  to 
full  communion,  nor,  apparently,  were  they  allowed  to  have 
a  voice  in  the  choice  of  church  officers  nor  in  civil  elections 
in  Massachusetts.2 

This  solution  of  the  religious  question  might  have  intro 
duced  a  broader  basis  for  the  suffrage  in  Massachusetts  had 
a  political  interpretation  been  given  to  the  synod's  decision. 
This  was  not  done,  however,  and  when,  upon  the  proposal 
of  some  inhabitants  of  the  county  of  Middlesex,  the  general 
court  was  compelled  to  decide  the  question,  it  gave  its 
authority  to  the  narrower  interpretation  of  the  franchise : 

"  No  Man  whatsoever,  shall  be  admitted  to  the  Freedome  of  this 
Body  Politick,  but  such  as  are  Members  of  some  Church  of  Christ  and 
in  full  Communion,  which  they  declare  to  be  the  true  intent  of  the 
ancient  Law." 8 

Thus  the  matter  of  the  suffrage  stood  when  the  colony 
entered  upon  its  contest  with  Charles  II.  shortly  after  his 
accession  to  the  throne.4 

1  Palfrey,  II,  487 ;   Doyle,  Puritan  Colonies,  II,  192. 

'Ibid.,  II,  489.  Cp.  Haynes,  Representation  and  Suffrage  in  Mass., 
J.  H.  U.  Studies,  XII,  424,  with  Lauer,  Church  and  State  in  New  Eng 
land,  ibid.,  X,  140-142. 

3  Code  of  1672,  56 ;   Mass.  Col.  Rec.,  IV,  Pt.  I,  420.     It  is  interesting 
to  notice  the  retention  of  this  clause  in  the  code  of  1672  after  the  nomi 
nal  extension  of  the  suffrage  in  1664.    Randolph  bases  his  charge  that 
none  but  church-members  can  be  freemen  upon  this  and  another  clause, 
both  of  which  were  directly  opposed  to  the  act  of  1664  admitting  non- 
church-members  (Randolph  Papers,  Prince  Society,  II,  293,  III,  35). 

4  Besides  requiring  the  voter  to  be  a  communicant  of  the  church,  the 
general  court,  in  1654,  nad  ordered  that  no  man,  even  a  freeman,  should 
serve  as  deputy  in  the  court  if  he  be  "  unsound  in  judgment,  concerning 
the  main  points  of  Christian  religion  as  they  have  been  held  forth  and 
acknowledged  by  the  generality  of  the  Protestant  Orthodox  writers, 
or  that  is  Scandalous  in  his  conversation,  or  that  is  unfaithfull  to  this 
Government."    A  fine  of  five  pounds  was  to  be  levied  upon  every  free 
man  knowingly  making  choice  of  any  such  person  (Code  of  1660,  25). 


320     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

There  were,  however,  two  cases  in  which  the  attitude  of 
the  Massachusetts  general  court  differed  from  its  uniform 
policy  towards  dissenters;  one  showing  greater  leniency, 
and  the  other  more  harshness  than  was  its  usual  custom. 
Instances  of  the  first  arise  out  of  political  considerations  in 
connection  with  the  Massachusetts  claims  to  the  territory 
of  New  Hampshire  and  Maine.  Under  the  colonial  inter 
pretation  of  the  charter  of  1629  the  Massachusetts  jurisdic 
tion  included  practically  all  the  scattered  settlements  to  the 
northward,  but  the  inhabitants  of  these  places  were  Episco 
palians,  or  even  religious  exiles  from  Massachusetts.1  It 
would  be  unwise  as  well  as  hazardous  to  the  claims  of  Mas 
sachusetts  to  attempt  to  reduce  these  distant  settlements  to 
religious  conformity  as  well  as  political  subjection.  The 
general  court  in  1642  accordingly  admitted  to  the  freedom 
of  the  colony  all  those  in  the  New  Hampshire  settlements 
who  had  "  liberty  of  freemen  in  their  severall  townes,"  and 
gave  them  the  privilege  of  sending  a  deputy  to  the  court, 
"  though  they  bee  not  at  p'sent  church  members."  2  About 
ten  years  later,  when  the  Maine  settlements  were  brought 
under  the  Massachusetts  jurisdiction,  the  inhabitants  were 
given  the  freedom,  although  they  did  not  belong  to  any 
orthodox  church.3 

On  the  other  hand,  a  strict  policy  of  repression  was 
adopted  towards  Quakers  and  Baptists,  which  while  ex 
cluding  them  from  the  suffrage  as  a  matter  of  course,  also 
inflicted  upon  them  more  severe  penalties.  In  1647  Jesuits 
found  within  the  province  after  being  banished  were  to  be 
subject  to  the  death  penalty;4  and  in  1653  the  penalty  of 
disfranchisement  was  inflicted  upon  a  freeman  because  he 

1  Winthrop   (History,  II,  100)  says  the  inhabitants  of  Gorges'  prov 
ince  were  not  admitted  to  the  New   England   Confederation  because 
"  they  ran  a  different  course  from  us  both  in  their  ministry  and  civil 
administration." 

2  Mass.  Col.  Rec.,  II,  29;    see  for  negotiations  with  the  New  Hamp 
shire  people,  ibid.,  I,  276,  324-5,  332,  342;    II,  5,  41.  43;    Palfrey,  I, 

587-594. 
*Mass.  Col  Rec.,  IV,  Pt.  I,  122,  128,  157  ff. ;    Hutchinson,  History,  I, 

177- 
'Mass.  Col.  Rec.,  II,  193. 


The  Suffrage  in  Massachusetts.  321 

had  criticised  certain  ecclesiastical  laws.1  In  the  fall  of 
1656  the  court  imposed  penalties  of  whipping,  imprison 
ment,  hard  labor,  and  banishment  upon  Quakers,  and  almost 
as  severe  punishments  upon  those  who  should  defend  their 
heretical  opinions.2  In  1663  a  more  general  rule  was 
enacted,  after  experience  had  proved  that  there  were  in  the 
colony  many  enemies  "  to  all  government,  civil  and  eccle- 
siasticall,  who  will  not  yield  obedience  to  authority,  but 
make  it  much  of  theire  religion  to  be  in  opposition  thereto."  3 
Accordingly  the  church-membership  provision  was  extended 
by  requiring  all  freemen  to  be  not  only  members  of  the 
church,  but  also  regular  attendants  upon  the  public  worship : 

"  All  persons,  Quakers  or  others,  wch  refuse  to  attend  vpon  the  pub- 
lick  worship  of  God  established  here,  that  all  such  persons,  whither 
freemen  or  others,  acting  as  aforesayd,  shall  &  hereby  are  made  vncapa- 
ble  of  voting  in  all  civil  assemblyes  during  theire  obstinate  persisting 
in  such  wicked  wayes  &  courses,  &  vntill  certificate  be  given  of  theire 
reformation." 

From  this  time  onward  church  attendance  was  required 
of  all  freemen,  and  it  is  significant  that  the  clause  disfran 
chising  those  who  refused  to  attend  the  church  was  retained 
in  the  legal  code  as  late  as  1672,*  and  was  not  repealed 
down  to  the  time  of  the  forfeiture  of  the  charter.  The 
action  against  the  Baptists,  while  not  leading  to  the  extreme 
of  the  death  penalty,  was  almost  as  rigorous  as  that  directed 
against  the  Quakers.  As  early  as  1644  the  sentence  of  ban 
ishment  was  passed  against  the  Baptists,5  and  in  1665  five 
persons  were  disfranchised  for  professing  the  doctrines  of 
the  Anabaptists.6 

*Mass.  Col.  Rec.,  IV,  Pt.  I,  155,  194 

*  Ibid.,  277;  the  death  penalty  clause  came  two  years  later  (ibid., 
346). 

8  Ibid.,  IV,  Pt.  II,  88-89. 

4  Code  of  1672,  48.  This  was  one  of  the  bases  of  Randolph's  claim 
that  none  but  church-members  could  be  freemen  (Randolph  Papers,  II, 
293;  III,  35). 

6  Mass.  Col.  Rec.,  II,  85. 

8  Ibid.,  IV,  Pt.  II,  290-291.  Later  they  were  ordered  to  leave  the 
colony  (ibid.,  373)  ;  but  the  order  was  not  enforced  and  the  sect  shortly 
came  to  be  tolerated  (Palfrey,  II,  486). 

21 


322     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

Upon  the  restoration  of  the  Stuart  monarchy  the  Mas 
sachusetts  General  Court  had  written,  in  December,  1660, 
to  King  Charles  II.  praying  for  a  continuance  of  their 
charter.1  To  this  address  the  king  sent  a  favorable  reply, 
promising  the  inhabitants  that  he  would  not  come  behind 
any  of  his  predecessors  in  a  just  encouragement  of  the 
colony,  and  that  they  should  be  partakers  in  his  late  prom 
ises  of  liberty  towards  tender  consciences.2  In  spite  of  a 
second  and  still  more  humble  and  supplicatory  letter  from 
the  general  court,3  the  king,  June  28,  1662,  was  ready  to 
suggest  changes  in  the  government  of  New  England  by 
which  members  of  the  Church  of  England  at  least  should 
be  granted  political  and  ecclesiastical  privileges.  In  a  letter 
of  that  date,  while  again  promising  protection  and  grant 
ing  pardon  for  all  offences  against  himself  committed 
in  the  colony,  Charles  required  and  charged  the  people 
of  Massachusetts  to  grant  liberty  of  conscience  to  those 
who  desired  the  use  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer;  he 
directed  the  colonists  to  take  the  oath  of  allegiance,  ordered 
that  all  justice  should  be  administered  in  his  name,  and 
that  laws  repugnant  to  his  authority  should  be  repealed. 
He  then  ordered  the  abolition  of  the  religious  qualification 
upon  the  suffrage. 

"  Wee  assuring  ourself,  &  obleiging  &  comanding  all  persons 
concerned,  that,  in  the  election  of  the  Gouernor  or  Asistants,  there  be 
only  consideration  had  of  the  wisdome,  virtue,  &  integrity  of  the  per 
sons  to  be  chosen,  &  not  of  any  affection  wth  refference  to  their  opin 
ions  &  outward  professions,  &  that  all  the  freeholders  of  competent 
estates,  not  vitious  in  conversacon  &  orthodoxe  in  religion,  (though  of 
different  persuasions  concerning  church  gouerment,)  may  haue  their 
votes  in  the  election  of  all  officers,  both  ciuill  &  military."  * 

The  royal  letter  caused  great  disappointment  in  the  colony,5 
where  the  kind  words  of  the  king's  first  letter  had  led  the 
colonists  to  hope  for  freedom  from  any  English  inter- 

1  Mass.  Col.  Rec.,  IV,  Ft.  I,  450. 

2  Palfrey,  II,  494~495. 

•Mass.  Col.  Rec.,  IV,  Ft.  II,  32. 

'Ibid.,  164;   Hutchinson,  Papers  (Prince  Soc.),  II,  100-104. 

B  Palfrey,  II,  528. 


The  Suffrage  in  Massachusetts.  323 

ference.  To  carry  out  the  king's  commands  would  mean 
the  overthrow  of  the  Puritan  theocracy;  and  the  authori 
ties,  not  openly  refusing  to  obey,  temporized  with  the  mat 
ter.  Beyond  directing  that  writs  should  run  in  the  king's 
name  none  of  the  royal  orders  was  immediately  executed 
by  the  general  court.1 

The  four  royal  commissioners  sent  to  New  England  in 
1664,  besides  their  other  duties,2  were  directed  to  confer 
with  the  Massachusetts  government  on  the  king's  letter  of 
1662  and  to  obtain  a  more  reasonable  compliance  with  its 
demands.3  The  commissioners'  instructions  were  explicit 
upon  this  point.4  The  king  deemed  it  "very  scandalous" 
that  any  man  should  be  debarred  from  the  practice  of  re 
ligion  according  to  English  laws  by  those  who  had  been 
given  liberty  to  adopt  what  profession  they  pleased  in  re 
ligion  ;  he  now  demanded, 

"  in  a  word,  that  persons  of  good  &  honest  conversation  who  have  lived 
long  there  may  enjoy  all  ye  priviledges  ecclesiasticall  &  civill  wch  are 
due  to  them,  and  wcl1  are  enjoyed  by  othrs,  as  to  choose  and  be  chosen 
into  places  of  government  &  the  like ;  and  that  differences  in  opinion 
doe  not  lessen  their  charity  to  each  other,  since  charity  is  a  fundamental 
in  all  religion." 

With  these  instructions  upon  the  suffrage  question  the  com 
missioners  arrived  in  Boston  in  July,  i664.5 

1  In  May,  1663,  however,  a  committee  of  magistrates,  deputies,  and 
elders  was  appointed  to  "  consider  the  perticulars  relating  to  extending 
the  liberty  of  certeine  of  the  inhabitants  in  point  of  elections;"  and 
any  of  the  elders  or  freemen  were  privileged  to  hand  to  the  committee 
their  advice  in  writing  upon  the  subject,  in  order  that  something  might 
be  agreed  upon  "  if  it  be  the  will  of  God,  that  may  be  satisfactory  and 
safe,  as  best  conducing  to  his  glory  and  this  peoples  felicity."  No  action 
appears  to  have  been  taken  by  this  committee,  and  Massachusetts  had 
made  no  further  compliance  with  the  king's  commands  when  the  royal 
commissioners  reached  Boston  in  the  summer  of  1664  (Mass.  Col.  Rec., 
IV,  Ft.  II,  74). 

1  For  general  accounts  of  the  commission  see  Palfrey,  II,  574-634 ; 
Doyle,  Puritan  Colonies,  II,  140-152;  Deane,  The  Puritan  Age,  502- 
520. 

*  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  III,  61-63. 

4/imf.,  51;    57H5i.  8  Palfrey,  II,  579. 


324     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

A  few  days  after  their  arrival  the  general  court  met  in 
special  session  and,  at  last  alive  to  the  necessity  of  some 
compliance  with  the  royal  demands,  passed  an  act  for  the 
extension  of  the  suffrage  to  non-church-members.  This 
law,  so  famous  for  its  formal  compliance  with  the  king's 
letter,  and  for  its  practical  disobedience  of  his  commands, 
is  as  follows : 

"  This  Court  doth  Declare,  That  the  Law  prohibiting  all  persons, 
except  Members  of  Churches,  and  that  also  for  allowance  of  them,  in 
any  County  Court,  are  hereby  Repealed. 

"  And  do  also  Order  and  Enact,  That  from  henceforth  all  English 
men,  presenting  a  Certificate  under  the  hands  of  the  Ministers  or  Min 
ister  of  the  place  where  they  dwell,  that  they  are  Orthodox  in  Religion, 
and  not  vicious  in  their  lives,  and  also  a  Certificate  under  the  hands  of 
the  Select  Men  of  the  place,  or  of  the  major  part  of  them,  that  they  are 
Free  holders,  and  are  for  their  own  proper  Estate  (without  heads  of 
persons)  rateable  to  the  Country  in  a  single  Country  Rate,  after  the 
usual  manner  of  valuation  in  the  place  where  they  live,  to  the  full  value 
of  ten  shillings,  or  that  they  are  in  full  Communion  with  some  church 
among  us;  It  shall  be  in  the  liberty  of  all  and  every  such  person  or 
persons,  being  twentyi.fo.ur  years  of  age,  Householders  and  settled 
Inhabitants  in  this  Jurisdiction,  from  time  to  time  to  present  them 
selves  and  their  desires  to  this  Court  for  their  admittance  to  the  Free- 
dome  of  this  Common-wealth,  and  shall  be  allowed  the  privilidge  to 
have  such  their  desire  propounded,  and  put  to  vote  in  the  General 
Court,  for  acceptance  to  the  Freedome  of  the  Body  politick,  by  the 
sufferage  of  the  major  part,  according  to  the  Rules  of  our  Patent."  * 

By  this  act  the  church-membership  restriction  was  tech 
nically  abolished,  but  a  mere  list  of  the  requirements  im 
posed  upon  those  who  desired  admission  under  the  terms 
of  the  act,  and  not  being  in  communion  with  some  church, 
shows  how  very  slightly  was  the  door  to  the  freemanship 
left  ajar.  The  applicant  must  be  ( i )  twenty- four  years  of 
age,  (2)  a  settled  inhabitant  (regularly  admitted  by  some 
town),  (3)  a  householder,  (4)  a  freeholder,  (5)  a  payer 
of  taxes  upon  property,  (6)  orthodox  in  religion,  (7)  not 
vicious  in  life;  (8)  he  must  present  a  certificate  from  all 
the  ministers  of  his  town  proving  his  religious  and  moral 
qualifications,  (9)  and  a  certificate  from  the  majority  of 

'Code  of  1672,  56;   Mass.  Col.  Rec.,  IV,  Pt.  II,  118. 


The  Suffrage  in  Massachusetts.  325 

the  selectmen  of  his  town  that  he  was  a  freeholder  and  a  tax 
payer  to  the  amount  of  ten  shillings,  not  including  his  poll- 
tax;  and  (10)  finally,  he  must  be  accepted  by  the  vote  of 
the  majority  of  the  general  court.  Yet,  said  the  court,  in  a 
letter  to  the  king  in  October,  1664,  this  was  the  "  utmost" 
they  could  do  to  satisfy  his  majesty  and  still  retain  con 
sistency  "  with  conscience  of  our  duty  towards  God,  &  the 
just  libertyes  &  priviledges  of  our  patent."1  Even  after 
several  persons  had  been  admitted  to  the  freedom  under  this 
plan,  it  was  but  natural  that  the  royal  commissioners  should 
consider  it  merely  a  subterfuge  by  which  "  they  might 
evade  the  King's  letter  in  that  poynt."  2 

Finding  that  the  law  of  1664  would  not  give  the  exten 
sion  of  the  suffrage  which  they  had  expected,  in  February, 
1664-5,  tne  commissioners  asked  the  general  court  to  invite 
all  the  inhabitants  of  the  colony  to  come  up  to  the  annual 
elections  in  the  following  May.3  When  the  court  refused  to 
call  the  people  together,  the  commissioners  even  resorted  to 
the  means  of  writing  letters  to  non-freemen  in  the  country, 
asking  them  to  attend  the  election.4  In  spite  of  all  their 
efforts,  the  commissioners  were  unsuccessful  in  arousing 
the  popular  clamor  which  they  hoped  would  overawe  the 
oligarchy.  The  assembly  did  not  change  its  attitude  except, 
if  anything,  to  become  more  independent.  In  the  corre 
spondence  between  the  court  and  the  commissioners  the 
former  asserted  that  the  oath  of  allegiance  was  adminis 
tered,  and  that  justice  ran  in  the  king's  name.  They  quietly, 
but  firmly,  refused  to  grant  the  use  of  the  Prayer-Book  or 
"  haue  the  same  set  vp  here:  we  conceive  it  is  apparent  that 
it  will  disturbe  our  peace  in  our  present  enjoyments."  5 
They  even  had  the  audacity  to  declare  that  they  had  con 
formed  to  the  king's  request  in  the  matter  of  the  suffrage : 

"  Touching  civil  libertjes. 

"  To  elect  or  be  elected,  vnto  civil  offices,  the  quallifications  men 
tioned  in  his  majestjes  letter,  being  orderly  euidenced  to  us,  are  ac 
cepted,  as  may  appeare  by  our  late  lawe  &  practise  therevpon." 

*Mass.  Col.  Rec.,  IV,  Pt.  II,  129. 

*N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  Ill,  84.  'Mass.  Col.  Rec.,  IV,  Pt.  II,  173. 

*  Ibid.,  174.  5  Ibid.,  200. 


326     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

This  reply  called  forth  a  sarcastic  rejoinder  from  the  com 
missioners,  in  which  they  expressed  admiration  for  those 
who  came  to  America  to  establish  liberty  of  conscience,  and 
later  denied  it  to  others,  in  order  that  their  own  enjoyments 
might  not  be  disturbed.1  Their  opinions  upon  the  new 
freemanship  law  were  not  hidden  in  sarcasm : 

"You  have  so  tentered  the  kings  quallifications  as  in  making  him 
only  who  payeth  ten  shillings  to  a  single  rate  to  be  of  competent  estate, 
that  when  the  king  shall  be  enformed,  as  the  trueth  is,  that  not  one 
church  member  in  an  hundred  payes  so  much,  &  yt  in  a  towne  of  an 
hundred  inhabitants,  scarse  three  such  men  are  to  be  found,  wee  feare 
the  king  will  rather  finde  himself  deluded  then  satisfied  by  your  late 
act." 

The  commissioners  now  took  up  the  printed  law-book  of 
1660  and  advised  over  a  score  of  changes  in  it.  In  these 
suggestions  they  no  longer  speak  for  the  whole  body  of  dis 
senters  or  non-church-members,  but  they  are  content  to  ask 
that  the  restriction  upon  freemen  be  so  changed  that  it  will 
comprehend  members  of  the  Church  of  England.2  The 
last  features  of  the  controversy  are  the  report  of  the  com 
missioners  concerning  Massachusetts3  and  a  narrative 
drawn  up  by  the  general  court  recounting  the  facts  of  their 
intercourse  with  the  commissioners.4  Neither  of  these  adds 
anything  to  the  suffrage  controversy;  the  court  claimed  it 
had  repealed  the  obnoxious  freemanship  law,  while  the  com 
missioners  again  alleged  that  the  new  act  was  of  no  value, 
its  practical  effect  being  to  retain  the  old  religious  limitation. 

Having  seen  the  controversy  between  the  commissioners 
and  the  court  about  the  act  of  1664,  we  may  now  look  at 
such  facts  as  illustrate  the  administration  of  this  law.  The 
terms  of  the  law  seem  designed  to  keep  out  rather  than  admit 
to  the  suffrage  those  who  were  not  members  of  some  regu 
lar  church.  Bearing  in  mind  the  uncompromising  character 
of  the  New  England  ministers,  it  would  seem  to  be  almost 

lMass.  Col.  Rec.,  IV,  Pt.  II,  204-205. 
8  Ibid.,  210  ff. 

8N.   Y.  Col.  Doc.,  Ill,  110-113;    Hutchinson,  Papers  (Prince  Soc.), 
II,  146-147- 
4  Mass.  Col.  Rec.,  IV,  Pt.  II,  218  ff. 


The  Suffrage  in  Massachusetts.  327 

impossible  for  a  person  not  belonging  to  the  church  to 
obtain  a  certificate  of  orthodoxy  in  religion  from  the  min 
isters  of  his  town.  But  even  if  this  were  possible,  there  were 
still  the  inhabitancy,  the  householder,  the  freeholder,  and  the 
tax-paying  qualifications  to  be  met  by  the  applicant,  in  addi 
tion  to  the  age  requirement  of  twenty-four  years.  Of  these 
qualifications  the  most  difficult,  next  to  the  religious  one, 
was  that  requiring  the  candidate  for  the  freemanship  to  pay 
at  least  ten  shillings,  besides  the  poll-tax,  in  a  single  country 
rate.  It  is  not  easy  to-day  to  catch  the  meaning  of  this  tax 
qualification.  The  unit  of  taxation  was  a  levy  of  one  penny 
on  the  pound  of  all  real  and  personal  property,1  and  this 
was  called  a  rate;  when  one  rate  did  not  yield  a  sufficient 
income,  several,  even  twenty,  might  be  laid.2  A  man  paying 
ten  shillings  taxes  at  the  rate  of  one  penny  on  the  pound 
would  possess  one  hundred  and  twenty  pounds  value  of 
taxable  property.  Such  an  amount  was  an  unusual  pos 
session  at  that  time  and  for  many  years  afterwards,  and  in 
the  colony  at  large  the  statement  of  the  royal  commission 
ers  may  have  been  near  the  truth,  that  "  not  one  church 
member  in  an  hundred  payes  so  much,"  and  "  in  a  towne 
of  an  hundred  inhabitants,  scarce  three  such  men  are  to  be 
found."  3 

Several  tax-lists  for  the  town  of  Boston  are  extant  for 
the  years  1674,  1676,  and  1687,*  which  throw  some  light 
upon  the  amount  of  assessed  property  held  by  citizens  of  that 
town.  The  list  of  1674 5  shows  ninety-nine  persons  out 
of  six  hundred  and  seventy-four  as  paying  ten  shillings  or 
more  upon  a  single  country  rate.  An  incomplete  list  for 
1676 6  gives  forty  out  of  one  hundred  and  ninety-seven 
male  taxables  as  possessing  one  hundred  and  twenty  pounds 

1  The  Book  of  the  General  Lavves  and  Libcrtyes,  1660,  14;    Code  of 
1672,  22-26.     The  laws,  unfortunately,  do  not  give  a  fixed  valuation  of 
land  as  was  the  case  in  Connecticut,  but  only  of  domestic  animals. 

2  Laws  of  New  Hampshire    (1904),   I,  Province  Period,   1679-1702, 
335,  367,  433,  450. 

3  Mass.  Col.  Rec.,  IV,  Ft.  II,  204-205. 

4  First  Report  of  the  Record  Commissioners  of  the  City  of  Boston, 
1876,  22-133. 

5 Ibid.,  22-59.  'Ibid.,  66-67. 


328     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

or  more  of  taxable  property.  These  lists  show  a  far  larger 
proportion  of  people  possessing  the  property  qualification 
than  the  commissioners  claimed ;  one  person  in  five  or  seven 
is  very  different  from  the  three  in  a  hundred  claimed  by  the 
commissioners'  report.1  The  list  for  i687,2  however,  varies 
considerably  from  the  earlier  one,  and  shows  a  general 
lowering  of  the  assessment  values.  Out  of  twelve  hundred 
and  thirty  male  tax-payers  in  that  year,  only  thirty-four 
persons  were  rated  for  ten  shillings  or  over.  This  brings 
up  quite  close  to  the  commissioners'  estimate  of  one  in 
thirty-three  of  the  population.  The  facts  given  in  these  lists 
show  that  the  tax-paying  qualification  at  best  would  have 
included  only  a  small  proportion  of  the  population  of  Boston. 
But  the  best  testimony  to  the  strictness  of  the  new  law 
is  to  be  seen  in  the  few  cases  of  freemen^  admitted  upon 
certificate.  In  the  fall  of  1664  six  persons  were  given  their 
freedom  upon  presenting  certificates  that  they  were  qualified 
according  to  the  law ; 3  but  this  comparatively  good  begin 
ning  was  not  maintained,  and  from  1665  to  1680  inclusive 
only  fourteen  cases  of  such  admissions  have  been  noted.4 
It  is  not,  of  course,  certain  that  the  records  have  expressly 
stated  all  the  cases  where  certificates  were  presented,  and  it 
is  possible  that  others  of  the  recorded  admissions  may  have 
been  upon  certificate  and  no  mention  made  of  the  fact.  But, 
looking  no  farther  than  the  face  of  the  records,  it  is  apparent 
that  only  about  twenty  persons  were  admitted  to  the  free- 
manship  under  the  new  law.5  Had  the  number  of  persons 

1  Allowance  must  be  made  for  the  wealth  of  Boston  and  also  for  the 
fact  that  these  lists  very  likely  did  not  include  all  those  taxed  on  the 
polls  alone;    probably  the  country  districts  would  show  a  much  lower 
proportion  of  qualified  persons  than  these  lists  give  for  Boston. 

2  First  Report  of  the  Record  Commissioners  of  the  City  of  Boston, 
1876,  91-133- 

'Mass.  Col  Rec.,  IV,  Pt.  II,  134- 

4  Ibid.,  145,  146,  285,  408;   V,  264,  279. 

5  One  of  these  certificates  has  been  preserved  in  Mass.  Hist.   Soc. 
Proc.,  ist  Series,  XII,  105: 

"  Certificate  of  John  Wilson  and  Hezekiah  Usher. 
"  These  do  testifie  vnto  the  honoured  Gen.  Court  y*  mr  John 
Tuttle,    William   Hasie,    and    Benjamin    Muzzie   of    Boston — 


The  Suffrage  in  Massachusetts.  329 

so  admitted  been  much  greater,  it  is  inconceivable  that  the 
Massachusetts  agents  later,  in  justifying  their  course  before 
the  Committee  of  Trade  and  Plantations,  would  have  used 
no  stronger  word  than  "  several"  in  describing  the  number 
of  non-church-members  who  had  been  made  free.1  It  seems 
highly  probable  that  the  new  qualification  was  used  only  as 
a  means  of  evading  the  king's  instructions,2  and  did  not 
result  in  any  appreciable  extension  of  the  suffrage.3 

After  the  contest  with  the  royal  commissioners  the  colony 
entered  upon  a  period  of  ten  years  of  political  peace  and 

Rumnie  marsh,  are  vpon  Good  testimony  of  others,  and  my 
owne  knowledge  or  experience  both  orthodox  in  the  Christian 
Religion,  and  of  unblameable  conversation,  as  I  do  believe,  and 
doe  humbly  comend  them  therefore  vnto  the  Acceptance  of  the 
hon.  Court,  into  the  Society  and  Companie  of  our  freemen, 
according  as  they  expresse  their  desires  therevnto,  and  Aymes 
at  the  Common  Good  therein.  JQHN  WILSQN  SENIQR 

"  2&  d.  of  the  3m.  65. 

"Mr  John  Tuttle,  William  Hasie  and  Benjamin  Muzzie,  are 
raiteable  acording  to  the  Law  made  for  admitance  of  Free 
men :  2.:  May  1665.  HEZEKIAH  VSHER." 

1  Randolph  Papers,  Prince  Society,  II,  283,  III,  8. 
2N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  Ill,  84. 

3  It  must  be  noted,  however,  that  the  total  number  of  admissions 
to  the  freemanship — presumably  all  church-members  except  the  twenty 
already  mentioned — was  considerably  greater  in  the  years  succeeding 
1664  than  in  those  immediately  preceding,  as  the  following  figures 
show: 

1645-1649  admissions  were  230 

1650-1654  "       146 

1655-1659  64 

1660-1664  48 

1665-1669  "       305 

1670-1674  "       415 

1675-1679  "       271 

1680-1684  397 

The  writer  at  first  supposed  that  this  increase  in  freemen  was  due  to 
the  new  law,  but  later  investigation  disclosed  no  connection  between 
this  number  of  freemen  and  the  law  of  1664. 


33°     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

ecclesiastical  quiet.  The  attitude  towards  the  Quakers  and 
other  dissenters  had  changed  somewhat,  so  far  as  religious 
tolerance  was  concerned,  but  this  lessening  severity  did  not 
extend  to  the  admission  of  the  non-conformists  to  the  free- 
manship.  When,  in  1670,  a  request  came  from  the  county 
of  York  (Maine), — one  of  the  places  whose  freemen  had 
been  admitted  without  reference  to  church-membership,—- 
that  the  number  of  their  freemen  be  increased,  they  received 
the  reply, — 

"  this  Court  declares,  yt  it  is  the  best  expedient  to  obteine  the  ends  de 
sired  that  those  parts  furnish  themselves  wth  an  able,  pious,  &  ortho 
dox  minister,  &  commend  that  to  them,  according  to  the  order  of  the 
County  Court."  * 

Such  language  gives  slight  evidence  of  a  compliance  with 
the  king's  desires,  and  it  shows  that  the  only  practical  way 
of  making  freemen  was  still  that  established  by  the  law  of 
1631.  A  similar  vigilance  is  seen  in  the  attempt  to  abolish 
election  mistakes,  frauds,  and  deceits  in  1673,2  an^  m  tne 
order  of  the  same  year  that  those  who  were  desirous  of 
becoming  freemen  under  the  act  of  1664  should  be  proposed 
at  one  annual  court  of  election  and  the  question  of  their 
admission  not  put  to  a  vote  until  the  following  year.3 

After  ten  years  of  comparative  quiet  upon  the  suffrage 
question,  the  matter  was  taken  up  anew  by  the  English 
government,  and  the  interference  from  England  was  aided 
by  the  vehemence  and  persistency  of  the  English  agent  in 
the  colonies.  Edward  Randolph  was  not  a  man  of  states 
manlike  character,  nor,  indeed,  was  his  mission  one  which 
required  such  qualities;  he  was  rather  a  political  detective, 
who,  for  the  use  of  the  English  authorities,  ferreted  out  the 
political  irregularities  of  the  Massachusetts  commonwealth. 
With  the  many  topics  of  dispute — the  Maine  and  New 
Hampshire  question,  the  enforcement  of  the  navigation  acts, 
the  judicial  and  oath  controversies — we  are  not  here  con- 

1  Mass.  Col.  Rec.,  IV,  Pt.  II,  452. 
*Ibid.,  553- 

8 Ibid.,  562.  This  act  was  repealed  ten  years  later  {ibid.,  V,  385).  I 
have  found  no  evidence  in  the  records  to  show  the  reason  for  the  act. 


The  Suffrage  in  Massachusetts.  331 

cerned ;  and  our  account  of  Randolph  must  be  limited  to  his 
attitude  towards  the  suffrage  question.1 

Almost  immediately  upon  his  arrival  in  New  England  he 
found  evidences  of  the  irregularities  which  it  was  his  busi 
ness  to  discover,  and  which  undoubtedly  did  exist.  In  June, 
1676,  he  writes  that  the  officers  of  the  colony  are  mainly 
"inconsiderable  Mechanicks;"  that  confiding  church-mem 
bers  are  alone  capable  of  election ;  and  that  the  clergy  gen 
erally  are  inclined  to  sedition,  although  some  "  Civil  Gen 
tlemen"  abominate  "  the  Hypocrisy  of  their  Pharisaicall 
Sanhedrim."  2  By  the  following  October  he  did  not  deal 
in  such  generalities,  but  now  stated  that  no  one  could  be 
admitted  a  freeman  or  have  any  vote  unless  he  were  a 
church-member  in  full  communion.  He  had  now  discov 
ered  that  the  oaths  of  supremacy  and  allegiance  were  not 
taken,  but  that  an  oath  of  fidelity  was  imposed  upon  all 
persons  under  penalty  of  a  fine  for  refusal;  he  believed  he 
saw  that  the  freemen  made  only  one-sixth  of  the  male 
population,  and  that  only  interest  and  design  had  drawn 
most  of  the  people  into  church-membership.3 

Randolph's  letters  were  considered  by  the  Committee  of 
Trade  and  Plantations  in  England,  who  thought  the  colony 
had  technically  abolished  its  earlier  freeman  law  at  the 
demand  of  the  king,  but  that  the  practice  all  along  had 
been  in  accordance  with  the  earlier  narrow  custom.4  The 
agents  of  Massachusetts  were  called  in  to  explain  the  con 
duct  of  the  colony,  and  they  replied  that  they  knew  of  no 
such  practice;  "  that  several  are  freemen  who  are  not 
Church-members,  and  that  'tis  not  the  point  of  opinion  in 
Religion,  but  the  number  or  defect  of  Votes,  that  prefers 
one  and  lays  by  others."  5  In  April,  1678,  Randolph  was 
back  in  England,  laying  his  charges  before  the  committee. 
The  Massachusetts  agents  offered  to  show  that  his  charges 
were  falsehoods,6  but  Randolph  replied  by  quoting  their 
own  law-book  of  1672,  and  at  the  request  of  the  lords  of  the 
committee  he  read  the  laws  refusing  freemanship  to  all  not 

1  For   an   elaborate  account  of   Randolph,   see   the   Prince   Society's 
edition  of  the  Randolph  Papers,  I ;    and  Palfrey,  III,  280-397. 
*  Randolph  Papers,  II,  206,  207. 

*Ibid.,  226,  235.  'Ibid.,  281. 

5  Ibid.,  283.  8  Ibid.,  285. 


332     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

in  full  communion  with  some  orthodox  church  and  forbid 
ding  any  person  from  voting  who  was  not  an  attendant 
upon  the  established  public  worship.1  The  committee  were 
much  impressed  by  Randolph's  case;  they  seemed  "very 
much  to  resent"  the  action  of  Massachusetts,  and  instead 
of  favoring  the  colony  they  expressed  the  opinion  that 
"the  whole  matter  ought  seriously  to  be  considered  from 
the  Very  Root."  2 

Later  the  colony  agents  replied  to  the  iterated  statements  8 
of  Randolph  respecting  the  limited  suffrage.  Although  by 
charter  they  had  absolute  power  to  admit  any  freemen  they 
saw  fit,  yet,  they  aver,  an  express  law  had  been  made  by 
which  "  others  besides  churchmembers  are  capacitated  to  be 
made  ffreemen,  upon  which  law  severall  considerable  per 
sons  have  been  admitted,  &  any  others  may  be  from  tyme  to 
tyme,  if  they  please  to  offer  themselves."  4  But  such  replies 
were  justly  held  to  be  subterfuges,  and  failed  to  satisfy 
either  Randolph  or  the  English  authorities  when  all  were 
looking  for  points  of  attack  upon  Massachusetts.  Ran 
dolph,  back  again  in  America,  wrote  in  1679  m  favor  of  a 
broad  extension  of  the  franchise  by  admitting  as  freemen 
all  inhabitants  who  had  taken  the  oath  of  allegiance,  and 
excluding  from  the  suffrage  or  office  all  refusing  to  take  the 
oath.5  Such  a  radical  change  was  not  adopted  by  the  Eng 
lish  committee,  but  in  May,  1679,  they  advised  the  king 
to  direct  "  that  there  bee  noe  other  distinction  in  making 
Freemen  than  that  they  bee  men  of  competent  Estates 
ratable  at  ten  shillings,  according  to  the  Law  of  the  place,"  6 
and  this  feature  was  shortly  afterwards  incorporated  into  a 
royal  letter  to  the  general  court.7  The  court  later  replied  8 

1  Randolph  Papers,  II,  293.    I  do  not  know  whether  it  was  intentional 
or  not  that  these  laws  were  permitted  to  stand  in  the  law-book  of  1672, 
after  the  passage  of  the  freeman  act  of  1664. 

2  Ibid.,  296.  z  Ibid.,  311,  313,  318. 
'Ibid.,  Ill,  8.  *Ibid.,  35. 

9  Ibid.,  45- 

7Hutchinson,  Papers  (Prince  Society),  II,  259.  Hutchinson,  in  a 
foot-note,  says,  "  They  seem  to  have  held  out  till  the  last  in  refusing 
to  admit"  those  who  were  not  church-members  or  did  not  obtain  a 
certificate  from  the  minister  of  the  town. 

8  June  n,  1680;   Mass.  Col.  Rec.,  V,  287,  288. 


The  Suffrage  in  Massachusetts.  333 

that  no  person  was  incapacitated  for  the  freemanship  who 
was  a  freeholder,  ratable  to  the  value  of  ten  shillings,  not 
vicious  in  life,  and  also  orthodox  in  religion;  and  they 
expressly  stated — for  the  first  time — that  to  be  of  a  different 
opinion  upon  matters  of  external  worship,  and  particularly 
to  desire  to  worship  according  to  the  rules  of  the  Church 
of  England,  was  not  the  form  of  heterodoxy  which  their 
law  provided  against.  This  is  the  most  liberal  statement 
on  the  subject  which  I  have  found;  but  even  this  shows  no 
intention  to  make  the  property  qualification  of  the  non- 
church-members  any  lower  than  the  extreme  requirements 
of  1664.  A  perfectly  frank  statement  would  have  said  that 
these  strict  property  conditions  were  not  applied  to  "  Con 
gregational  men,"  but  only  to  those  not  in  communion  with 
the  established  churches. 

In  the  midst  of  the  attacks  upon  the  company's  charter 
there  appears  to  be  no  intention  on  the  part  of  the  colonial 
leaders  of  changing  the  suffrage  conditions.  In  August, 
1682,  when  Randolph  was  again  writing  against  the  in 
fluence  of  the  Independent  ministers,1  the  Massachusetts 
agents  in  London  were  reiterating  their  usual  part-truth, 
"  There  is  noe  other  distinction  vsed  in  makeing  of  ffree- 
men  Then  that  they  be  freeholders  of  Tenn  Shillings  ratable 
Estate,  and  of  the  Protestant  Religion."2  Even  after  the 
court  learned  how  sharply  the  proceedings  against  the  colony 
were  being  pushed  in  England,  the  agents  were  instructed :  3 

"  It  being  of  the  essentialls  in  our  charter  to  vse  our  owne  liberty 
wth  respect  to  freemen,  this  Court  hauing  repealed  that  law  that 
appointed  a  yeares  probation,  so  as  now  wee  haue  fully  complyed  with 
his  majettes  former  letters  and  comands  in  this  matter,  yow  are  not  to 
make  any  alteration  of  the  quallifications  that  are  required  by  law  as 
at  present  established." 

Up  to  the  last  the  form  of  political  qualification  which,  in 
spite  of  all  denials,  actually  favored  church-members  was 

1  Randolph  Papers,  III,  186,  187. 

J  Ibid.,  192.  In  February,  1682-3,  the  general  court  repealed  the  law 
requiring  applicants  for  freedom  who  were  not  members  of  the  church 
to  undergo  a  year's  probation  before  acceptance  into  the  corporation; 
but  this  was  as  far  as  they  would  go  (Mass.  Col.  Rec.,  V,  385). 

8  March  30,  1683 ;    Mass.  Col  Rec.,  V,  389. 


334     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

upheld  by  those  directing  the  policy  of  the  colony.  The 
overthrow  of  the  religious  system  did  not  come  until  the 
company's  charter  was  declared  forfeited  by  the  English 
Court  of  Chancery  in  1684,  and  all  political  activity  under 
the  charter  ceased  two  years  later  by  the  appointment  of  a 
president  and  sixteen  councillors  for  Massachusetts,  New 
Hampshire,  Maine,  and  the  King's  Province.1  Thereafter, 
until  the  overthrow  of  the  government  of  Andros  in  the 
spring  of  1689,  Massachusetts  was  without  any  popular 
elections  except  those  in  the  towns  for  local  officers. 

It  would  be  interesting,  if  possible,  to  determine  the  num 
ber  of  freemen  in  Massachusetts  immediately  before  the 
revocation  of  the  charter,  but  it  is  doubtful  if  the  material 
exists  for  an  exact  account.  Palfrey  estimates  the  freemen 
as  numbering  between  one  thousand  and  twelve  hundred 
persons  in  1670; 2  another  writer  believes  the  freemen  made 
up  about  one-fifteenth  of  the  entire  population  in  i679;3 
while  Randolph,  writing  in  1682,  states  that  there  were 
eighteen  hundred  freemen,4  and  that  they  made  up  less  than 
one-eighth  of  the  (male?)  inhabitants.5  At  an  election  for 
the  nominations  of  magistrates  in  1676,  under  the  code  of 
i672,6  each  freeman  voted  for  eighteen  persons;  and  the 
highest  number  of  votes  cast  was  thirteen  hundred  and 
twenty,  for  John  Leverett.7  This  would  show  that  there 
were  at  least  thirteen  hundred  freemen,  and  probably  con 
siderably  more  than  that  figure.  It  is  not  likely  that  every 
freeman  gave  one  of  his  eighteen  votes  for  Leverett,  nor  is 
it  probable  that  every  freeman  took  part  in  the  nomination 
for  magistrates.  To  place  the  number  of  freemen  in  1676 
at  about  fifteen  hundred  would,  therefore,  not  seem  an 
over-estimate.  Votes  for  the  nomination  of  magistrates  in 
1683  and  i6868  show  a  smaller  number  of  freemen  par 
ticipating  than  in  1676,  a  result  perhaps  to  be  attributed  to 

1  Palfrey,  III,  484. 

*  New  England,  III,  41,  note  3. 

8  Ernst,  Constitutional  History  of  Boston,  17. 

4  Randolph  Papers,  Prince  Society,  III,  172,  173. 

*Ibid.,  186,  187. 

8  Code  of  1672,  47. 

7  New  Hampshire  Hist.  Soc.  Coll,  III,  99. 

8Hutchinson,  Papers  (Prince  Society),  II,  282,  285. 


The  Suffrage  in  Massachusetts.  335 

the  uncertainty  concerning  the  company  charter  in  the  later 
years.1  Taking  these  several  instances,  it  appears  that  about 
thirteen  hundred  freemen  actually  participated  in  the  annual 
nominations  for  magistrates.  The  population  of  the  colony, 
at  the  lowest  estimate,  was  twenty-five  thousand  in  1670; 
and  allowing  for  the  increase  in  population  in  the  following 
years,  we  shall  not  be  far  wrong  if  we  count  the  voting 
freemen  as  one-twentieth  of  the  entire  population,  or  one- 
fourth  or  one-fifth  of  the  adult  males.2 

With  the  seizure  and  arrest  of  Andros  and  his  associates 
in  April,  1689,  the  popular  forms  of  government  were  re 
stored.  It  was  not,  indeed,  thought  best  to  have  an  election 
for  colony  officers  in  May,  but  delegates  to  conventions  were 
elected  by  the  several  towns;  and  the  second  convention 
agreed  to  a  policy  similar  to  that  adopted  in  the  other 
colonies  of  New  England, — that  of  restoring  to  office  the 
magistrates  who  had  been  deposed  by  the  recent  coercive 
measures  of  James  II.3  Later  the  convention  became  bolder, 
taking  the  name  of  general  court,  and  in  the  spring  of  1690 
providing  for  a  regular  colonial  election.4 

At  an  early  point  in  the  revolution  against  Andros  there 
are  indications  of  a  change  in  sentiment  upon  the  suffrage 
question.  The  charter  officers  were  restored  and  the  old 
forms  revived,  but  the  struggle  with  the  Stuarts  and  their 
governors  had  brought  the  freemen  and  non-freemen  more 
closely  together.  A  broadside,  evidently  printed  before  the 
political  question  had  been  solved  in  May,  1689,  expressed 
the  opinion  that  the  officers  elected  in  1686  would  have  the 
power  and  will  "  to  take  in  Free  men  under  qualifications 
of  Sobriety,  and  some  Interest  in  the  Country  by  Estate."  5 
In  February,  1689-90,  when  the  determination  to  hold  an 
election  in  May  had  been  reached,  a  change  in  the  suffrage 

1  In  1683  there  were  26,  and  in  1686,  32  nominees.  Adding  together 
the  votes  for  all  of  these  and  dividing  by  eighteen,  the  number  for 
which  each  voter  could  ballot,  and  taking  it  for  granted  that  each 
freeman  did  vote  for  eighteen,  it  appears  that  there  were  1260  voters  in 
1683  and  1305  in  1686. 

1  Compare  Palfrey,  III,  41,  note  3. 

•Ibid.,  589. 

4  New  Hampshire  Provincial  Laws  (1004),  I,  349,  353. 

"  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Proc.,  1st  Series,  XII,  118,  119. 


336     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

qualifications  was  also  adopted  by  which  the  old  require 
ment  of  a  minister's  certificate  was  abolished,  and  a  com 
paratively  low  property  or  tax-paying  qualification  imposed : 

"  It  is  Ordered  by  this  Court,  That  the  Clause  in  the  Law  title  Free 
men,  referring  to  Ministers  giving  Certificate  to  Persons  Desiring  their 
Freedom,  be  and  hereby  is  repealed,  And  the  Sum  of  Ten  shillings  is 
reduced  to  ffour  shillings  in  a  Single  Country  Rate  (without  heads  of 
Persons)  Or  that  the  Person  to  be  made  free  have  houses  or  Lands  of 
the  Cleer  Yearly  Value  of  Six  Pounds  Freehold  w'ch  Value  is  to  be 
returned  to  the  Court  by  the  Select  men  of  the  Place,  or  the  Major 
part  of  them  who  also  are  to  Certify  that  such  Person  is  not  vicious 
in  Life." 1 

The  effect  of  this  act  was  not  to  repeal  the  clause  under 
which  since  1631  adult  male  church-members  had  been  ad 
mitted  to  the  freemanship,  but  to  lower  the  restrictions 
imposed  by  the  act  of  1664  upon  the  admission  of  those  who 
were  not  members  of  the  church. 

There  is  abundant  proof  that  the  act  of  February, 
1689-90,  resulted  in  an  immediate  extension  of  the  fran 
chise.  The  records  of  the  court2  in  the  few  succeeding 
weeks  give  the  names  of  nine  hundred  and  nine  new  free 
men.3  This  figure  becomes  significant  when  it  is  noted  that 
the  number  of  freemen  admitted  during  the  two  months  of 
March  and  April,  1690,  was  greater  than  the  entire  number 
of  admissions  in  the  twelve  years  from  1674  to  1686  under 
the  old  charter  and  suffrage  provisions.  Of  the  new  admis 
sions  it  is  also  interesting  to  notice  that  over  half — four 
hundred  and  ninety-three — were  plainly  admitted  by  virtue 
of  the  new  property  and  tax-paying  qualifications,  while 
only  two  hundred  and  ninety-three  were  accepted  because 
of  their  church-membership;  and  of  the  remaining  ones, 

1  New  Hampshire  Provincial  Laws,  I,  355 ;    New  England  Historical 
and  Genealogical  Register,  III,  346;   Sewall's  Diary  in  Mass.  Hist.  Soc. 
Coll.,  6th  Series,  I,  107.     The  income  qualification  of  this  act  required 
non-church-members  to  possess  an  income  from  freehold  three  times 
as  great  as  that  required  by  the  English  forty-shilling  qualification. 

2  The  legislative  records  of  the  Inter-charter  period   have   recently 
been  published   in  Vol.   I   of  the  New  Hampshire   Laws,   Provincial 
Period. 

3  Ibid.,  363-471  passim. 


The  Suffrage  in  Massachusetts.  337 

the  basis  for  whose  admission  is  not  stated  in  the  records, 
it  is  probable  that  a  majority  also  came  in  under  the  terms 
of  the  new  law.  The  revolutionists  in  Massachusetts,  like 
Leisler  in  New  York,  granted  an  extension  of  the  suffrage 
in  order  to  strengthen  their  cause ;  but  in  the  former  colony 
they  still  retained  the  favoritism  shown  to  the  members  of 
the  church.  It  was  not  until  the  passing  of  the  new  charter 
of  1691  under  the  royal  seals  that  the  suffrage  was  estab 
lished  uniformly  upon  a  property  basis,  and  the  peculiar 
political  privileges  of  the  church-members,  after  sixty  years 
of  practice,  were  at  last  abolished.  A  man's  political  rights, 
for  the  future,  were  to  rest  upon  the  ownership  of  wealth, 
not  upon  the  possession  of  an  orthodox  Christian  character. 
The  ideal  of  the  founders  was  a  noble  one,  but  two  facts 
in  the  English  world  of  the  time  made  the  attainment  of  the 
ideal  impossible.  The  first  of  these  facts  was  the  lack  of 
religious  homogeneity  in  the  English  nation,  and  the  grow 
ing  toleration  which  came  in  spite  of  all  the  adverse  legisla 
tion  of  the  Cavalier  Parliament.  The  religious  restrictions 
imposed  by  Massachusetts  were  more  far-reaching  than 
those  in  England,  and  came  into  conflict  with  the  less  severe 
policy  of  the  Stuarts.  The  second  fact  is  to  be  seen  in  the 
anomaly  of  disfranchising  members  of  the  Church  of  Eng 
land  in  an  English  colony.  The  English  Parliament  had 
indeed  attempted  to  prevent  non-conformists  from  voting 
in  English  elections,  but  it  was  not  the  more  likely  to  relish 
the  disfranchisement  of  Episcopalians  by  a  non-conformist 
English  colony.  Had  church-membership  in  New  England 
carried  with  it  orthodoxy  in  the  English  sense,  it  is  possible 
the  home  government  would  not  so  strongly  have  opposed 
the  religious  qualifications;  but  the  exclusion  of  Episco 
palians  from  political  power  was  as  obnoxious  to  the  Eng 
lishman  of  1691  as  it  had  been  in  the  days  of  Charles  I.  and 
Charles  II. 

II.  The  Plymouth  Colony. 

Plymouth  colony  is  the  first  of  the  many  New  England 
settlements  whose  political  organization  may  be  called  in 
digenous;  not  in  the  sense  that  the  type  of  government 
founded  was  un-English,  but  that  it  had  no  organic  or  legal 


22 


338     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

connection  with  the  English  government.  Within  the 
limits  of  every  one  of  the  New  England  colonies  there 
appeared  bands  of  settlers  who  had  voluntarily  united  for 
purposes  of  settlement,  and  who  were  compelled  by  force  of 
circumstances  to  form  political  associations.  The  most  cele 
brated  of  such  associations  is  that  formed  on  board  the 
Mayflower  on  November  n,  1620.  The  Pilgrims  were 
already  united  by  social  and  religious  ties,  and  in  their  joint 
endeavors  to  defray  the  cost  of  the  expedition  they  had 
formed  a  quasi-corporation  of  an  economic  nature.  But 
the  political  organization  which  should  have  -been  derived 
from  the  Virginia  Company,  upon  whose  land  they  intended 
to  settle,  was  of  no  value  when  the  Pilgrims  found  them 
selves  ,many  miles  away  from  the  lands  of  the  Virginia 
Company,  and  with  no  possibility  of  reaching  the  place  of 
their  intended  settlement.  The  political  consequences  of  the 
mistake  of  selecting  so  northern  a  settlement  were  seized 
upon  at  once  by  "  some  of  the  strangers  amongst  them," 
who  in  "  discontented  &  mutinous  speeches"  asserted  that 
they  would  "  use  their  owne  libertie"  on  shore,  and  that 
there  was  none  who  had  power  to  command  them.1  To 
curb  such  spirits,  and  also  because  it  was  felt  that  a  political 
association  of  the  colonists  would  be  as  "  firme  as  any 
patent,  and  in  some  respects  more  sure,"  the  Mayflower 
compact  was  composed  and  signed. 

The  words  of  this  document  are  known  to  almost  every 
American,  but  no  excuse  need  be  given  for  repeating  here 
the  political  phrases  of  the  compact.  The  subscribers  agree 
that  they  do 

"  by  these  presents  solemnly  &  mutualy  in  ye  presence  of  God,  and  one 
of  another,  covenant  &  combine  our  selves  togeather  into  a  civill  body 
politick,  for  our  better  ordering  &  preservation  &  furtherance  of  ye 
ends  aforesaid ;  and  by  vertue  hearof  to  enacte,  constitute,  and  frame 
such  just  &  equall  lawes,  ordinances,  acts,  constitutions,  &  offices,  from 
time  to  time,  as  shall  be  thought  most  meete  &  convenient  for  ye  gen- 
erall  good  of  ye  Colonie,  unto  which  we  promise  all  due  submission 
and  obedience."  2 

1  Bradford,  History  of  Plymouth  Plantation,  53. 

2  Ibid.,  54- 


The  Suffrage  in  Massachusetts.  339 

Under  this  association  the  government  of  Plymouth  colony 
was  administered  for  over  seventy  years.  The  patent  from 
the  Council  for  New  England,  obtained  in  1621,  gave  a 
legal  title  to  the  land  so  unexpectedly  occupied,  but  it  did 
little  more  in  a  political  way  than  to  confirm  the  existing 
government.  The  self-incorporating  body  by  this  patent 
attained  legal  position,  but  no  real  change  was  made  in 
the  administration  of  government  in  the  little  colony. 
Bradford's  anticipation  that  the  personal  compact  would 
be  "  more  sure"  than  any  patent  later  received  its  justi 
fication,  for  no  colonial  political  organization  of  the 
seventeenth  century  had  as  long  a  lease  of  life  as  did 
the  government  inaugurated  so  humbly  in  the  Mayflower 
cabin. 

Funds  for  the  transportation  of  the  Pilgrims  had  been 
obtained  by  the  formation  of  a  stock  company  in  London, 
composed  of  certain  capitalists  and  the  emigrants.  The 
shares  were  placed  at  ten  pounds,  and  any  free  man  going 
to  the  colony  was  entitled  to  one  share  without  making  a 
money  subscription.1  Perhaps  one-quarter  or  one-fifth  of 
the  stock  of  the  undertaking  was  represented  by  shares 
issued  in  this  way  to  the  settlers;  the  remainder  of  the 
capital — that  is,  four-fifths  of  seven  thousand  pounds — was 
furnished  by  London  capitalists.2  All  the  property  of  the 
enterprise  was  to  be  held  in  common,  and  at  the  end  of 
seven  years  was  to  be  distributed  pro  rata  among  the  stock 
holders,  both  in  England  and  the  colony.  In  1623  the 
London  adventurers  sent  out  some  colonists  who  were  not 
incorporated  into  the  organization  as  stockholders,  but  who 
came  out  at  their  own  risk  and  expense,  and  hence  did  not 
form  a  part  of  the  communistic  enterprise.  These  "  par 
ticulars"  were  "  yet  to  be  subjecte  to  ye  generall  Govern 
ment,"  3  although  not  sharing  in  the  common  duties  or 
advantages.4  While  subject  to  the  laws  and  regulations 
of  the  colony,  it  does  not  appear  that  these  "  particulars" 

1  Bradford,  28,  29. 

2  Doyle,  Puritan  Colonies,  I,  42. 
8  Bradford,  100. 

*  Ibid.,  104,  123. 


340     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

had  any  share  in  elections  or  government;  and  it  is  not  to 
be  wondered  that  they  formed  a  discontented  faction.1 

These  conditions,  together  with  the  desertion  of  some 
from  the  "  generality"  to  the  "  particular"  state,  and  the 
fear  of  the  rapidly  approaching  time  when  all  property 
must  be  distributed  share  and  share  alike,  led  to  the  pro 
posal  on  the  part  of  the  colonist  stockholders  to  purchase 
the  shares  of  the  London  capitalists.  Accordingly,  in  1626, 
a  contract  was  executed  2  for  the  extinction  of  the  claims 
of  the  Londoners.  The  purchase  outright  by  the  colonists 
gave  them  entire  control  of  the  property  of  the  colony,  and 
permitted  them  to  admit  to  their  membership  new  proprie 
tors  upon  their  own  terms.  The  effect  upon  the  colony 
was  much  the  same  as  that  which  followed  the  transfer  of 
the  Massachusetts  charter  to  New  England;  it  removed 
the  directing  power  in  the  colony's  affairs  from  England 
to  America  and  identified  the  economic  trading  company 
activity  with  the  political  organization.  The  purchase  led 
to  another  development, — an  extension  of  the  franchise  in 
the  colony. 

Up  to  this  point  the  community  of  goods  and  of  political 
privileges,  based  respectively,  as  we  have  seen,  upon  the 
commercial  contract  made  in  London  and  upon  the  civil 
compact  made  on  the  Mayflower,  was  limited  to  those  who 
became  stockholders  of  the  enterprise.  Now  that  the  colony 
had  achieved  self-ownership,  the  stockholder  theory  was  not 
abandoned,  but  simply  extended  to  include  all  the  respon 
sible  inhabitants,  whether  they  were  "  particulars"  or  of 
the  "  generality."  The  attitude  of  the  colony  was  a  more 
liberal  one  than  that  adopted  in  Massachusetts  four  years 
later.  "  For  sundrie  reasons,"  which,  unfortunately,  Brad 
ford  does  not  enumerate,  it  was  determined  to  admit  "  into 
this  partnership"  all  heads  of  families  and  those  free  single 
young  men  who  were  able  to  govern  themselves  and  their 
affairs,  and  accordingly  "  be  helpfull  in  ye  comone-welth."  3 
Each  free  single  man  was  to  receive  one  share,  and  heads 
of  families  were  given  one  share  for  themselves  and  for 

1  Palfrey,  I,  219;    Bradford,  123. 

2  Ibid.,  143,  144.  s  Ibid.,  145. 


The  Suffrage  in  Massachusetts.  341 

each  person  in  their  families.  Upon  this  basis  the  lands, 
houses,  and  cattle  were  divided,  and  incidentally  political 
privileges  were  now  conferred  upon  many  who  previously 
as  "  particulars"  did  not  participate  in  the  government. 
Thus  the  inhabitants  acquired  possession  of  the  lands  of  the 
colony;  and  partnership  in  the  economic  sense,  which  at 
first  seemed  the  stronger  of  the  bonds  uniting  the  settlers, 
gradually  gave  place  under  the  extension  of  private  owner 
ship  of  lands  to  the  more  modern  feeling  of  political  asso 
ciation.1 

The  new  patent  from  the  Council  for  New  England, 
obtained  in  January,  1629-30,  empowered  Bradford  and 
his  heirs,  associates,  and  assigns  to  incorporate  themselves 
and  the  inhabitants  of  the  colony  under  "  some  usual  or  fit 
name  and  title,"  and  to  make  ordinances  and  constitutions 
for  themselves,  not  contrary  to  the  laws  of  England  or  to 
any  frame  of  government  established  by  the  Council.2  But 
this  patent,  like  the  earlier  one,  simply  placed  the  duty  of 
organizing  the  government  upon  the  settlers,  and  left  the 
Mayflower  compact  and  the  partnership  arrangement  of 
1627  as  the  real  bases  of  government. 

By  the  codification  of  1636  and  the  legislation  of  the  two 
succeeding  years,  the  civil  and  constitutional  organization 
of  the  colony  is  evident  for  the  first  time.  The  class  of 
freemen  is  now  distinct;  they  are  to  meet  annually  for  the 
purpose  of  electing  the  governor,  assistants,  constables,  and 
other  inferior  officers,3  and  are  subject  to  a  fine  for  absence 
from  election  or  refusal  to  hold  office.4  New  freemen  were 
admitted  by  a  vote  of  the  general  court,  composed  of  all 
the  freemen ; 5  or,  later,  by  the  representative  courts.  No 

1  At  what  point  the  word  freeman  was  first  applied  to  the  partners 
does  not  appear  from  the  records.     It  is  used  in  1633  and  occurs  fre 
quently  in  the  legislation  of  1636,  and  probably  was  adopted  from  the 
Massachusetts  use  of  the  word    (Plymouth  Records,  Court  Records, 

1,5). 

2  Hazard,  Historical  Collections,  I,  298-304. 

8  Records  of  the  Colony  of  New  Plymouth,  Laws,  7,  10. 
4  Ibid.,   10.     The  fine  for  neglecting  to  vote  was  re-enacted  in   1660 
and  changed  from  three  to  ten  shillings  (Records,  Laws,  84,  127). 
8  Ibid.,  Court  Records,  I,  32,  and  passim. 


342     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

general  qualifications  appear  to  have  been  required  of  appli 
cants  for  the  freemanship  except  the  taking  of  an  oath  of 
allegiance  to  the  king  and  of  fidelity  to  the  government.1 
It  is  apparent,  however,  that  the  freemen  did  not,  as  in  early 
Maryland,  include  all  the  free  men.  Notwithstanding  the 
generous  extension  of  political  and  economic  rights  in  1627, 
the  existence  of  a  non-enfranchised  class  is  plain  by  1636. 
The  laws  of  that  year  established  an  inhabitant's  oath,  simi 
lar  to  that  for  freemen; 2  jury  service  was  required  of  free 
holders  who  were  not  freemen  as  well  as  those  who  had 
been  admitted,3  and  no  person  could  be  admitted  as  an 
inhabitant,  or  be  permitted  to  become  a  housekeeper,  or  to 
build  a  cottage,  without  the  consent  of  some  of  the  magis 
trates.4 

As  in  early  Connecticut,  so  in  Plymouth,  the  suffrage 
was  controlled  largely  by  placing  restrictions  upon  the  ad 
mission  of  inhabitants  rather  than  by  expressing  definite 
qualifications  for  the  freemanship.  Thus,  in  the  absence 

1  Records  of  the  Colony  of  New  Plymouth,  Laws,  8.  In  requiring  the 
oath  of  allegiance  to  the  king  the  government  of  Plymouth  differed 
from  that  of  Massachusetts.  The  oath  is  as  follows : 

"  You  shall  be  truly  loyall  to  our  Sov.  Lord  King  Charles 
his  heires  &  successors.  You  shall  not  speake  or  doe,  devise  or 
advise  any  thing  or  things  act  or  acts  directly  or  indirectly  by 
land  or  water,  that  doth  shall  or  may  tend  to  the  destruccon 
or  overthrow  of  this  prn't  plantacons  Colonie  or  Corporacon 
of  New  Plymouth,  Neither  shall  you  suffer  the  same  to  be 
spoken  or  done  but  shall  hinder  oppose  &  discover  the  same 
to  the  Govr  &  Assistants  of  the  said  Colony  for  the  time  being 
or  some  one  of  them.  You  shall  faithfully  submit  unto  such 
good  &  wholesome  laws  &  ordnances  as  either  are  or  shall  be 
made  for  the  ordering  &  governm*  of  the  same,  and  shall 
endeavor  to  advance  the  growth  &  good  of  the  several  Colonies 
wthin  the  limits  of  this  Corporacon  by  all  due  meanes  & 
courses.  All  wch  you  promise  &  swear  by  the  name  of  the 
great  God  of  heaven  &  earth  simply  truly  &  faithfully  to 
p' forme  as  you  hope  for  help  fro'  God  who  is  the  God  of  truth 
and  punisher  of  falsehood." 

1  Ibid.,  9,  12. 

*  Ibid.,  ii.  *  Ibid.,  26,  108,  109. 


The  Suffrage  in  Massachusetts.  343 

of  any  express  restrictions  upon  the  freemanship,  the  terms 
of  admission  of  inhabitants  into  the  colony  became  more 
important  than  they  were  in  the  Massachusetts  Bay  colony. 
The  matter  was  not  left  with  the  several  towns,  but  was 
controlled  by  the  general  government,  and  without  the  per 
mission  of  some  of  the  magistrates  none  could  be  admitted. 
By  "  lamentable  experience"  the  general  court  had  dis 
covered  that  unworthy  persons  were  sometimes  admitted 
when  such  power  was  left  to  the  local  inhabitants.1  In  1640 
the  court  ordered  that  no  new  inhabitants  be  admitted  into 
Yarmouth  "  except  they  bring  certificate  from  the  places 
whence  they  come,  vnder  sufficient  mens  hands  of  the  s'd 
places,  of  their  religious  and  honest  carriage,  wcn  certify- 
cate  shall  first  be  allowed  by  the  gou'nr  and  assistants  before 
such  p'sons  be  admitted  there."  2  An  inhabitant's  oath  had 
been  required  as  early  as  1636,  and  in  1644  the  court  ordered 
that  no  person  should  be  considered  an  inhabitant  unless  he 
took  the  oath  of  fidelity.3  Between  1658  and  1662  resi 
dents  who  refused  to  take  the  oath  of  fidelity  might  be  fined 
annually;  4  and  in  the  former  year,  when  many  had  "  crept 
into  some  townshipes"  contrary  to  the  "  ancient  and  whol- 
some"  law  of  1636-7,  all  not  formally  admitted  were  re 
quired  to  gain  the  approbation  of  the  governor  and  at  least 
two  of  the  assistants;  or,  failing  in  that,  to  depart  the 
colony.5  In  1678  additional  steps  were  taken  for  enforcing 
the  law  of  1636-7  in  order  to  prevent  "  prophanes  In 
creasing  in  the  Collonie  which  is  soe  provoakeing  to  God 
and  threatening  to  bringe  Judgments  vppn  vs."  6  Fines  were 
to  be  imposed  upon  residents  who  remained  without  permis 
sion,  and  upon  persons  entertaining  such  residents.  The 
act  concludes  with  the  injunction  to  the  magistrates, — show 
ing  the  retention  of  a  religious  qualification  at  this  late 

1  Plymouth  Records,  Court  Records,  I,  120. 

*  Ibid.,  142.     See  Court  Records,  III,  165,  for  permission  to  settle  in 
a  town. 

3  Plymouth  Records,  Laws,  43. 

4  Ibid.,  109,  118,  129.     For  infliction  of  fine,  see  Court  Orders,  III, 
139,  176,  181,  191. 

5  Ibid.,  Laws,  1 18. 

6  Ibid.,  248. 


344     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

date, — that  they  "  wilbe  carefull,  that  whom  they  accept 
off,  are  p'sons  orthadox  in  theire  Judgments."  Thus  to 
become  a  legal  inhabitant  a  man  must  take  the  oath  of  fidel 
ity,  and  must  be  accepted  by  the  magistrates ;  and  to  obtain 
the  approval  of  the  latter  a  certificate  of  religious  character 
might  be  required  or  some  proof  of  orthodoxy  in  belief. 
While  there  was  no  religious  qualification  for  the  freeman- 
ship,  the  character  of  a  man's  religious  belief  might  pro 
cure  his  admission  or  exclusion  from  the  colony. 

This  question  of  inhabitancy  in  Plymouth  is  significant, 
not  only  because  there  were  few  restrictions  upon  the  free- 
manship  itself,  but  also  on  account  of  the  political  privileges 
which  were  granted  to  inhabitants  who  were  not  freemen. 
As  early  as  1636  non-freemen  appear  to  be  associated  with 
the  freemen  in  town  affairs,1  but  their  most  valuable  privi 
lege  came  in  the  association  with  the  freemen  in  the  election 
of  deputies  to  the  representative  courts  established  in  1638. 
The  town  deputies  were  to  be  chosen  by  the  freemen  and 
"  such  as  are  not  ffreemen  but  haue  taken  the  Oath  of  fidel- 
itie  and  are  masters  of  famylies  and  Inhabitants  of  the  said 
Townes  as  they  are  to  beare  their  [part]  in  the  charges  of 
their  Committees  so  to  haue  a  vote  in  the  choyce  of  them."  2 
But  the  delegates  chosen  must  be  freemen,  and  the  magis 
trates  and  deputies  were  empowered  to  dismiss  any  deputy 
who  was  "  insufficient  or  troublesome."  Under  this  pro 
vision  non-freemen  participated  in  the  election  of  repre 
sentatives  throughout  the  colonial  period,  although  only 
freemen  took  part  in  the  election  of  magistrates.3 

The  scrutiny  required  by  law  before  the  admission  of  in 
habitants  was  not  always  exercised,4  and  in  1658  an  order 
of  court  recognized  the  fact  that  "  the  Number  of  freemen 
in  many  places  is  but  smale  and  the  Inhabitants  of  the 
townshipes  many  more  whoe  haue  equall  voates  with  the 
freemen  in  the  choise  of  Deputies;"  by  the  weakness  or 
prejudice  of  these  inhabitants,  the  court  stated,  "  it  hath  or 

1  Plymouth  Records,  Laws,  18. 

2  Ibid.,  31. 

3  The  similar  provision  in  Connecticut  colony  from  1639  to  1662  may 
have  been  introduced  from  Plymouth. 

4  Compare  Laws,  118. 


The  Suffrage  in  Massachusetts.  345 

may  come  to  passe  that  very  vnfitt  and  vnworthy  p'sons 
may  be  chosen."  To  prevent  such  evils  the  magistrates  and 
deputies  were  again  empowered  to  exclude  objectionable 
members.1  The  more  natural  policy  of  limiting  the  suffrage 
was  adopted  in  1669,  when  it  was  provided  that  none  should 
vote  in  town  meetings  but  freemen,  or  "  ^freeholders  of 
twenty  pounds  ratable  estate  and  of  good  conversation 
haueing  taken  the  oath  of  fidelitie."  2  A  few  years  later,  in 
1678,  it  was  found  "  that  the  voateing  of  prsons  that  haue 
not  taken  the  oath  of  fidelity,  doth  much  obstruct  the  carry 
ing  on  of  religion  in  the  publicke  weale."  Accordingly,  the 
exclusion  from  town  meetings  of  those  who  had  not  taken 
the  oath  was  reaffirmed,  and  the  clerks  of  the  towns  were 
directed  to  keep  the  names  of  the  men  of  their  towns  who 
had  taken  the  oath.3 

We  must  now  notice  what  requirements  were  imposed 
upon  applicants  for  the  freemanship,  after  having  become 
inhabitants  of  the  colony.  Three  formalities  cut  off  the  non- 
free  from  the  franchise, — the  proposal  of  the  applicant's 
name  to  the  general  court,  his  acceptance  after  a  term  of 
probation,  and  the  taking  of  the  oath  of  freeman  by  him 
after  the  court  had  voted  to  admit  him.4  For  a  number  of 
years  there  appears  to  have  been  no  formal  method  of  pro 
posing  the  names  of  applicants ;  and  the  term  of  probation 
was  not  a  fixed  one,  but  usually  lasted  until  the  next  meet 
ing  of  the  court,  which  might  not  be  .a  longer  time  than 
three  or  four  months.  A  change  in  the:  method  of  admission 
did  not  come  until  June,  1656,  when  it  was  ordered  that 
future  candidates  for  the  freemafitehip  should  be  "  such  as 
shalbee  alsoe  approued  of  by  tl^fe  freemen  in  such  townes 
wher  they  Hue,"  and  propounded  to  the  court  by  the  deputies 
of  their  respective  towns.5  Thus  the  approbation  of  the 

1  Compare  Laws,  92.  ,*•    2  Ibid.,  223.  8  Ibid.,  248. 

4  See  Records,  passim,  for  .instances  of  each  of  these  features. 

5  Ibid.,  Court  Orders,  IH^ioi ;   also  Laws,  65,  68.     Compare  this  cus 
tom  with  the  relation  of  town  freemanship  to  colony  freemanship  in 
Rhode  Island,  where  the  colony  resigned  almost  entirely  to  the  towns 
the  prerogative  of  admission  to  the  franchise.     Plymouth  never  went  so 
far  in  her  local  privileges.    The  Plymouth  law  was  re-enacted  in  almost 
the  same  words  in  June,  1674  (Records,  Laws,  236). 


346     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

select  class  of  freemen  of  a  man's  own  town  must  first  be 
obtained  before  his  name  could  be  proposed  for  admission 
to  the  colony  court.  Even  this  restriction  did  not  seem 
sufficient,  and  two  years  later  the  applicant  was  required  to 
"  stand  one  whole  yeare  propounded  to  the  Court,"  and 
then  to  be  admitted  if  the  court  "  shall  not  see  cause  to  the 
Contrary."1 

In  the  meantime,  following  the  leadership  of  her  stronger 
neighbors,  Plymouth  began  a  policy  of  religious  restric 
tions  which,  while  never  so  exclusive  as  those  of  Massachu 
setts  and  New  Haven,  yet  departed  from  the  more  tolerant 
practice  of  the  early  settlers.  In  June,  1650,  the  features 
of  the  Massachusetts  conformity  act  of  1635-6  were  adopted 
by  Plymouth.  The  new  order  provided 

"  That  forasmuch  as  there  are  Risen  vp  amongst  vs  many  scandalvs 
practises  which  are  likly  to  proue  destructiue  to  our  churches  and 
Common  peace;  That  whosoeuer  shall  heerafter  set  vp  any  churches 
or  publicke  meetings  diverse  from  those  allreddy  set  vp  and  approued 
without  the  concent  and  approbacon  of  the  Gouerment  or  shall  cori- 
tinew  any  otherwise  set  vp  without  concent  as  aforsaid  shalbe  sus 
pended  from  haueing  any  voyce  in  towne  meetings  and  p'sented  to  the 
next  general  court  to  Receue  such  punishment  as  the  court  shall  think 
meet  to  Inflict."  2 

A  few  years  later,  in  1659,  during  the  first  invasion  by 
the  Quakers  into  New  England,  Quakers  and  sympathizers 
with  them  were  disfranchised  in  Plymouth.  "  Noe  Quaker 
Rantor  or  any  such  corupt  p'son"  could  be  admitted  to  the 
franchise;  3  and  freemen  who  were  found  to  be  Quakers  or 
"  manifest  Incurragers"  of  them  were  to  be  disfranchised. 
Linked  with  the  Quakers  in  exclusion  from  the  freemanship 
were  "  opposers  of  the  good  and  whosome  lawes  of  this 
Collonie  or  manifest  opposers  of  the  true  worship  of  God 
or  such  as  refuse  to  doe  the  Countrey  seruice  being  called 
thervnto;"  and  joined  with  them  in  incurring  the  pains  of 
disfranchisement  after  admission  were  "  such  as  shall  con 
temptuously  speake  of  the  Court  or  of  the  lawes  thereof 

1  Records,  Laws,  79.    Compare  with  similar  feature  in  Connecticut. 

2  Ibid.,  57- 

3  Records,  Court  Records,  III,  167;    Laws,  100. 


The  Suffrage  in  Massachusetts.  347 

and  such  as  are  Judged  by  the  Court  grosly  scandalouse  as 
lyers  drunkards  Swearers  &c."  l  The  association  of  the 
Quakers  in  the  minds  of  the  legislators  with  such  classes 
shows  that  the  opposition  to  them  was  grounded  not  so 
much  upon  a  religious  fear  as  upon  the  political  necessity 
of  maintaining  the  purity  of  the  body  politic.  Not  until 
July,  1 68 1,  were  the  Quakers  restored  to  a  more  favorable 
position.  Then  certain  Quakers  dwelling  in  Sandwich  were 
given  liberty  to  vote  in  the  disposal  of  lands  and  the  choice 
of  rators  or  assessors.2 

The  royal  commissioners  to  New  England  inquired  into 
the  condition  of  Plymouth  as  well  as  the  other  colonies,  and 
were  favorably  impressed  by  the  attitude  of  the  authorities. 
To  the  four  propositions  of  the  commissioners  3  the  general 
court  responded  in  May,  1665.  The  reply  to  the  first  was 
that  they  had  been  accustomed  to  require  all  householders 
to  take  the  oath  of  loyalty  to  the  king.  To  the  second,  the 
court  said  it  had  been  the  constant  practice 

"  to  admitt  men  of  competent  estates  and  ciuell  conversation,  though 
of  different  judgments,  yet  being  otherwise  orthodox,  to  bee  freemen, 
and  to  haue  libertie  to  chose  and  bee  chosen  officers  both  ciuell  and 
milletary."  * 

The  reply  to  the  third  proposal  was  worded  more  guard 
edly;  the  court  would  "most  hartily  rejoyce  that  all  our 
naighbours,  soe  quallifyed  as  in  the  proposition,  would 
adjoyne  themselves  to  our  societie;"  but  if  differing  beliefs 
made  this  impossible,  they  would  not  deny  the  liberty  of 
establishing  other  societies,  where  an  able  preaching  min 
ister  was  supported  and  regular  Sabbath  worship  estab 
lished  ;  but  they  inferred  that  where  by  reason  of  the  paucity 
and  poverty  ("pausette  and  pouertie")  of  the  population 

1  Cases  of  disfranchisement  both  before  and  after  1659  are  common 
in  the  Plymouth  records.    The  causes  of  disfranchisement  were  drunk 
enness,  lewdness,  accepting  Quakerism  or  sympathizing  with  Quakers, 
and  opposing  the  government   (Court  Records,  I,  132;    III,   167,   176, 

189). 

2  Court  Records,  VI,  71. 

3  Ibid.,  IV,  85,  86. 

4  Ibid. 


348     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

two  congregations  could  not  be  maintained,  it  was  not  in 
tended  to  root  out  the  present  organization.  There  are,  the 
court  added,  "  other  places  to  accommodate  men  of  different 
pswasions  in  societies  by  themselves."  To  the  fourth  pro 
posal  the  court  expressed  itself  not  conscious  of  any  laws 
derogatory  to  the  king's  dignity,  but  promised  to  repeal  or 
alter  them  if  any  should  be  found. 

These  answers  and  the  general  attitude  of  the  court 
pleased  the  commissioners,  and  they  wrote  in  their  nar 
rative, — 

"  They  are  here  constrained  to  perswade  men,  sometimes  to  compell 
them,  to  be  free  men,  soe  far  are  they  from  hindering  any."  * 

Such  a  comment  from  those  who  were  looking  for  irregu 
larities  means  more  than  it  would  from  the  colonists  them 
selves.  Plymouth  possessed  fewer  natural  advantages  and 
less  wealth  than  did  the  neighboring  colonies,  and  conse 
quently  there  were  not  the  same  inducements  for  settlers  to 
enter  the  colony.  Thus  she  retained  a  greater  economic 
and  religious  homogeneity  than  Massachusetts  or  Connec 
ticut,  and  it  is  noteworthy  that  the  records  of  Plymouth  do 
not  show  the  restless  activity  of  a  disfranchised  class  which 
is  seen  in  Massachusetts  and  New  Haven.  Perhaps  the 
commissioners  were  right  in  their  statement  of  the  difficulty 
of  obtaining  freemen. 

But  the  test  of  such  a  statement  would  be  found  in  the 
actual  number  of  freemen  and  their  proportion  to  the  whole 
population.  In  1634  it  is  probable  that  considerably  more 
than  a  majority  of  the  adult  male  taxpayers  were  freemen.2 
By  1638  the  whole  number  of  freemen  was  one  hundred 
and  twenty-three ; 3  and  forty-four  more  were  added  within 
the  next  five  years.4  In  1643,  therefore,  not  allowing  for 
deaths,  there  were  one  hundred  and  sixty-seven  freemen,  at 

1  Hutchinson,  Papers  (Prince  Society),  II,  145. 

2  There  were  sixty-eight  freemen  in   1634  and  only  eighty-six  male 
taxables  in  the  preceding  year,  but  it  is  probable  that  the  number  of 
males  was  greater  than  the  number  of  taxables  (Palfrey,  I,  344). 

8  Court  Records,  I,  52. 

*  Ibid.,  126-161  passim;  II,  8-52  passim. 


The  Suffrage  in  Massachusetts.  349 

a  time  when  the  males  between  the  ages  of  sixteen  and 
sixty  numbered  six  hundred  and  forty.1  It  accordingly 
seems  probable  that  the  freemen  at  this  time  made  up  about 
one-fourth  of  the  adult  male  population.  Yet  sixteen  years 
later,  upon  a  matter  submitted  to  the  freemen,  only  one 
hundred  and  seventy-four  freemen  voted.2  In  1670  the 
number  of  freemen  had  increased  to  three  hundred  and  fifty- 
nine  3  in  a  population  estimated  at  five  thousand.4  This 
would  give  one  freeman  to  fourteen  persons  of  the  popula 
tion,  and  make  the  freeman  class  one-third  or  one-fourth 
of  the  adult  male  population.  Apparently,  therefore,  the 
enfranchised  class  in  Plymouth  was  slightly  larger  than  in 
Massachusetts,  and  somewhat  smaller  than  in  Connecticut  5 
at  this  time.6 

III.   The  Northern  Territories:  New  Hampshire  and  Maine. 

Little  need  be  said  in  this  connection  of  the  suffrage 
in  New  Hampshire.  The  facts  of  interest  during  the  inde 
pendent  existence  of  the  colony  will  be  told  in  their  proper 
place,  while  under  the  rule  of  Massachusetts,  her  policies 
dominated  the  New  Hampshire  towns.  Some  of  the  New 

1  Records,  VIII,  187. 

-  Court  Records,  III,  174. 
3  Ibid.,  V,  274. 

*  Palfrey,  III,  35. 

5  The   writer  cannot  agree  with   Goodwin    (Pilgrim  Republic,  415) 
that  the  proportion  of  freemen  in  Massachusetts  was  "  a  half  greater" 
than  in  Plymouth. 

6  Plymouth,  like  her  neighbors,  developed  a  system  of  so-called  proxy 
voting,   but  the  records   are  meagre  in  their   descriptions  of   it,   and 
apparently  it  never  possessed  the  features  of  a  true  proxy  which  are 
to  be  found  in  early  Rhode  Island  and  Maryland.     The  "proxy"  was 
simply  the  written  ballot  of  the  freeman  who  did  not  desire  to  attend 
personally  the  annual  court  of  elections.     The  ballot  was  handed  by 
the  freeman  to  the  town  deputy  after  the  latter's  election  in  the  town 
meeting,  and  by  the  deputy  the  actual  ballot  was  taken,  together  with 
a  list  of  the  names  of  those  so  voting,  to  the  general  court  of  elec 
tions.    There  the  freemen  present  first  gave  their  votes  and  then,  in  an 
orderly  fashion,  the  deputies  presented  the  ballots  of  those  who  had 
decided  not  to  attend  (Plymouth  Records,  Laws,  79~8o,  Court  Orders, 
II,  118). 


350     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

Hampshire  settlements  had,  indeed,  been  founded  by  dis 
senters  from  Massachusetts,  and  at  the  time  of  incorpora 
tion  with  Massachusetts,  those  who  had  been  formally  ad 
mitted  as  inhabitants  or  "  freemen"  of  the  New  Hampshire 
towns  wrere  granted  the  Massachusetts  franchise.1  But  this 
practice,  apparently,  did  not  continue  after  the  union,  and 
the  same  rules  were  applied  to  applicants  for  the  freemen- 
ship  from  these  towns  as  were  imposed  upon  those  in  Mas 
sachusetts  proper. 

In  Maine,  on  the  other  hand,  there  was  a  longer  indepen 
dent  existence  before  the  union  with  Massachusetts,  and  a 
greater  variation  from  the  prevailing  New  England  idea  of 
freemanship.  From  the  time  of  the  unfortunate  Popham 
colony  on  the  Kennebec  in  1607  for  almost  thirty  years 
there  was  no  regularly  organized  government  in  Maine,  and 
the  scattered  settlements  under  different  grants  were  prac 
tically  self-governing  communities.  The  first  government 
worthy  of  the  name  was  that  established  in  1636  by  Wil 
liam  Gorges,  a  nephew  of  the  proprietor,  at  Saco.2  This 
was  followed  four  years  later  by  a  more  formal  organization 
under  the  new  charter  granted  by  the  king  in  1639  to 
Gorges.  The  charter  gave  to  the  proprietor  wide  palatine 
powers  similar  to  those  granted  to  Lord  Baltimore,  and,  as 
in  the  case  of  the  latter,  the  inhabitants  of  the  colony  were 
to  be  joined  with  the  proprietor  in  the  making  of  laws. 
The  legislative  power  was  to  be  exercised  by  the  proprietor 
"  with  the  assent  of  the  greater  parte  of  the  Freeholders  of 
the  said  Province  and  Premisses  for  the  tyme  being  (when 
there  shal  bee  any)  whoe  are  to  bee  called  thereunto  from 
tyme  to  tyme." 3  In  March,  1639-40,  Gorges  executed 
papers  for  the  establishment  of  government  under  the  char 
ter  by  erecting  a  council  of  seven  named  persons,  and  eight 
representatives  of  the  freeholders  elected  from  four  coun 
ties.4  The  small  village  of  Agamenticus  (York)  was  first 
erected  into  a  borough,  and  then  in  1642  was  made  a  city 

1  Mass.  Col.  Rec.,  II,  29. 

4  Williamson,   I,  281.     The  first  meeting  under   Gorges's    frame   of 
8  Poore,  Charters  and  Constitutions,  I,  776. 

4  Williamson,  I,  281.  The  first  meeting  under  George's  frame  of 
government  appears  to  have  been  a  pure  democratic  meeting  (ibid.). 


The  Suffrage  in  Massachusetts.  351 

with  a  mayor,  recorder,  twelve  aldermen  and  twenty-four 
common  councilmen,  all  annually  elected  by  the  citizens  and 
freeholders.1 

After  the  death  of  Gorges  in  1647,  some  confusion  arose 
in  the  colony,  and  in  July,  1649,  a  popular  convention,  meet 
ing  at  Gorgeana  (York),  established  a  popular  government 
based  upon  a  general  compact : 

"  We,  with  our  free  and  voluntary  consent,  do  bind  ourselves  in  a 
body  politic  and  combination,  to  see  these  parts  of  the  Country  and 
Province  regulated,  according  to  such  laws  as  have  formerly  been 
exercised,  and  such  others  as  shall  be  thought  meet,  but  not  repugnant 
to  the  fundamental  laws  of  our  native  Country."  ' 

A  governor  and  five  or  six  councillors  were  to  be  elected 
annually  and  the  choice  determined  "  by  most  voices."  Ap 
parently,  therefore,  popular  government  existed  among  the 
settlers  of  the  Gorges  tract  for  a  number  of  years  before 
the  union  with  Massachusetts.  During  this  period,  when 
any  qualifications  for  the  suffrage  were  expressed,  and  such 
was  not  often  the  case,  the  franchise  was  limited  to  free 
holders,  except  in  the  case  of  the  city  of  Gorgeana,  where 
"  citizens"  could  vote. 

In  addition  to  the  Gorges  colony  there  were  a  number  of 
other  settlements  in  the  Maine  territory,  but  their  scattered 
inhabitants  owed  relationship  to  various  proprietors,  or  to 
the  colony  of  Plymouth,  and  political  association  was  of 
the  most  rudimentary  kind.  Only  among  the  settlers  of  the 
Lygonia  patent  do  popular  meetings  appear  to  have  played 
a  definite  part  in  the  government.3  At  best  the  forms  of 
government  only  were  a  little  further  developed  in  the 
Gorges  lands  and  the  colony  of  Lygonia  than  in  the  weak 

1  Palfrey,  I,  527 ;    Williamson,   I,  287.     Palfrey  estimates  that  two- 
thirds   of   the   adult   males   must   have   been    favored   with    places   of 
authority  under  this  charter;    and  it  was  the  foolishness  of  the  pro 
prietor   in   bestowing   such   an   organization   upon   a    frontier   village, 
together  with  their  heterodoxy  in  religion,  which  led  to  the  exclusion 
of  the  Gorges  settlements  from  the  confederacy  of  New  England  colo 
nists  in  1643  (Winthrop,  II,  100). 

2  Williamson,  I,  326.  ^ 
8  Ibid.,  327,  note. 


352     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

settlements  to  the  eastward  of  them ;  the  real  administration 
of  government  throughout  all  the  country  was  crude  and 
uncertain.  It  is  probable  that  many  welcomed  the  claims  of 
Massachusetts  as  a  means  to  a  better  regulation  of  society.1 
In  1651  the  Massachusetts  general  court  took  steps  to 
assert  the  authority  over  the  Maine  settlements  which  it 
claimed  was  its  right  under  the  charter  of  1628-29;  an<^ 
in  the  following  year  the  nearest  Maine  settlements  gave  in 
their  submission.  The  agreement  with  the  inhabitants  of 
Kittery  Point  included  the  following  article  relating  to  the 
franchise : 

"  7.  That  all  the  present  inhabitants  of  Kittery  shall  be  freemen  of 
the  countrye,  and,  having  taken  the  oath  of  freemen,  shall  have  lib- 
ertye  to  give  theire  votes  for  the  election  of  the  Gouernor,  Assistants, 
and  other  generall  officers  of  the  countrye."  * 

Similar  terms  were  granted  to  Gorgeana  (York),  Wells, 
Saco,  Cape  Porpus,  and,  in  1658,  to  Lygonia.3  It  will  be 
seen  that  the  Massachusetts  authorities  by  these  articles 
admitted  the  inhabitants  to  the  freemanship  without  refer- 
jjng  to  the  religious  question,  and,  as  many  of  the  Maine 
settlers  were  not  Puritans,  it  was  the  wisest  plan  to  adopt. 
It  is  hardly  likely  that  the  inhabitants  of  the  northeastern 
settlements  would  so  readily  have  submitted  had  their  sub 
jection  included  a  religious  as  well  as  a  political  dependence 
upon  Massachusetts.  Yet  there  was  no  guarantee  in  the 
articles  that  the  lenient  policy  would  be  continued ;  only  the 
"  present"  inhabitants  were  given  these  terms.  For  the 
future  the  same  religious  restrictions  governed  the  admission 
of  freemen  from  the  North  as  from  the  rest  of  the  colony. 
The  early  liberalism  may  have  led  the  inhabitants  to  think 
they  would  receive  similar  treatment  in  the  future;  but 
in  1670,  when  complaining  of  the  lack  of  freemen,  the  in 
habitants  of  York  County  were  advised  by  the  general  court 
to  obtain  an  orthodox  minister  as  the  best  way  to  increase 

1  Williamson,  I,  333. 

2  Mass.  Col.  Rec.,  IV,  Pt.  I,  122  ff. 

3  Ibid.,   128,   157  ff.,  357  ff.     Williamson  estimates  that   150  persons 
took  the  freeman's  oath  in  the  first  instance,  and  that  they  represented 
a  population  of  about  2100  (I,  356,  note). 


The  Suffrage  in  Massachusetts.  353 

the  number  of  freemen  among  them.1  No  further  conces 
sion  was  made  to  the  New  Hampshire  and  Maine  settlers. 
Until  1679,  in  New  Hampshire,  and  during  the  entire 
colonial  period  in  Maine,  the  basis  of  representation  and 
the  suffrage  in  the  northern  settlements  was  the  legislation 
of  the  colony  of  Massachusetts. 

IV.   Under  the  Charter  of  1691. 

For  three  years  after  the  revolution  of  1689  in  Boston 
the  government  of  Massachusetts  was  carried  on  without 
express  legal  sanction  upon  the  principles  of  the  old  char 
ter.  We  have  already  noted  how  the  revolution  resulted  in 
an  extension  of  the  suffrage  during  this  inter-charter  period. 
It  now  remains  for  us  to  note  the  granting  of  the  new  char 
ter  and  consider  the  suffrage  provisions  under  its  terms. 
After  the  accession  of  William  and  Mary,  Mather  and  other 
agents  worked  to  the  utmost  to  obtain  the  restoration  of  the 
old  charter.2  But  in  this  they  failed,  and  the  king  would 
consent  to  the  granting  of  a  charter  only  where  a  closer  con 
nection  should  be  maintained  with  England.3 

The  charter  of  October  7,  i69i,4  established  a  new 
corporation,  stripped  of  the  commercial  characteristics  of  the 
old  company,  and  gave  it  the  name  of  the  "  Province  of  the 
Massachusetts  Bay  in  New  England."  The  new  govern 
ment  included  the  Bay  colony,  Plymouth,  Maine,  and  the 
scattered  settlements  from  the  Kennebec  to  Nova  Scotia. 
Its  principal  officers — governor,  deputy-governor,  and  a 
secretary — were  to  be  appointed  by  the  king;  a  council  of 
twenty-eight  members  was  to  be  elected  annually  by  the 
assembly;  and  the  representative  assembly  was  to  be  com 
posed  of  two  deputies  elected  "  by  the  Major  parte  of  the 
Freeholders  and  other  inhabitants  of  the  respective  Townes 
or  Places  who  shall  be  present  at  such  Eleccons." 

The  religious  qualifications  for  the  suffrage  were  abol 
ished  by  the  new  charter,  and  at  last  the  colony  was  given 

1  Mass.  Col.  Rcc.,  IV,  Pt.  II,  452. 

2  Palfrey,  IV,  61-70. 
8  Ibid.,  71-75- 

*  Poore,  Charters  and  Constitutions,  I,  942-954. 

23 


354     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  tfte  English  Colonies. 

a  uniform  property  qualification.  According  to  the  terms 
of  the  copy  of  the  charter  which  Governor  Phipps  brought 
to  Boston  on  May  14,  1692,  it  was  provided  that 

"  noe  Freeholder  or  other  Person  shall  have  a  Vote  in  the  Eleccon  of 
Members  to  serve  in  any  Create  and  Generall  Court  or  Assembly  to  be 
held  as  aforesaid  who  .at  the  time  of  such  Eleccon  shall  not  have  an 
estate  of  Freehold  in  Land  within  Our  said  Province  or  Territory  to 
the  value  of  Forty  Shillings  per  Annu.  at  the  least  or  other  estate  to 
the  value  of  Forty  pounds  SterlV  * 

But  this  copy  did  not  agree  with  that  which  passed  the 
great  seal  on  October  7,  1691,  which  required  the  voter  to 
possess  an  income  of  forty  shillings  from  freehold  land  or 
other  estate  to  the  value  of.*  fifty  pounds.2  The  practice  of 
the  colonial  government  was  based  upon  their  copy  of  the 
charter,  while  the  English  government,  throughout  the  colo 
nial  period,  attempted  to  enforce  the  fifty  pounds  provision 
of  the  charter  as  enrolled  in  London.3  Aside,  however, 
from  this  controversy,  the  charter  basis  of  the  suffrage  is 
interesting  because  it  gave  the  rational  dual  qualifications, — 
those  of  real  estate  and  of  personal  property.  The  anti 
quated  forty-shilling  freehold  requisite,  now  two  hundred 
and  fifty  years  old,  was  joined  with  the  alternative  of  the 
possession  of  forty  or  fifty  pounds  value  of  other  property. 
This  was  as  great  a  compromise  as  seventeenth  century 
statesmen  could  admit  to  their  favorite  English  doctrine  of 
the  representation  of  real  estate.  Yet  it  was  more  favorable 
than  the  requirements  which  the  freemen  of  Rhode  Island 
placed  upon  applicants  for  the  freemanship,  or  those  im 
posed  upon  New  Hampshire  by  the  royal  commissions  and 
instructions  to  her  governors;  and  it  was  identical  with 
the  qualifications  in  force  in  Connecticut  after  1702. 

Since  the  royal  charter  of  1691  continued  as  the  frame 
of  government  of  the  colony  until  the  Revolution,  its  express 

1  Poore,  I,  949. 

a  Ellis  Ames  in  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Proc.,  1868,  370-375,  has  pointed  out 
the  probable  cause  of  the  discrepancy,  which  he  ascribes  to  a  change 
in  the  English  copy  just  before  passing  the  great  seal,  while  the  copy 
made  ready  for  Phipps  was  not  changed  in  a  corresponding  manner. 

8  J.  F.  Jameson,  New  England  Magazine,  Jan.,  1890,  486. 


The  Suffrage  in  Massachusetts.  355 

provisions  for  the  suffrage  furnish  the  sole  legal  basis  of 
the  franchise  during  the  eighteenth  century.  There  are  no 
further  changes  in  the  formal  qualifications  of  voters  to  be 
noted,  except  a  naturalization  act  of  February,  1730-31, 
which  only  indirectly  affected  the  suffrage,  through  its  ex 
clusion  of  foreign  Catholics  from  the  rights  of  citizenship.1 
We  may,  therefore,  glance  at  some  facts  bearing  upon  the 
size  of  the  voting  class  in  Massachusetts  during  the  eigh 
teenth  century.  In  the  election  of  May,  1692,  a  few  days 
before  Governor  Phipps  arrived  with  the  new  charter,  only 
about  one  thousand  freemen  took  part  in  the  election  of 
magistrates ; 2  which,  accepting  Palfrey's  estimate  of  the 
population  at  the  time,3  would  show  only  one_voter  to  sixty 
persons  in  the  population.  This  extremely  small  proportion, 
after  the  recent  enlargement  of  the  freemanship,  can  be  ex 
plained  only  on  the  ground  of  a  lack  of  popular  interest  in 
the  election,  perhaps  resulting  from  the  belief  theft  the  ex 
isting  government  was  only  temporary  and  must  soon  give 
place  to  the  organization  under  the  new  charter.4  Some 
idea  of  the  proportion  of  voters  after  the  charter  was  estab 
lished  can  be  gained  from  the  records  of  the  town  of  Boston. 
In  1703  only  two  hundred  and  six  persons5  voted  for  the 
representatives  of  Boston  out  of  a  population  of  about  seven 
thousand ;  6  or  one  person  in  thirty-five.  During  the  ten 
years,  1745-1754,  which  may  be  taken  as  fairly  normal  elec 
tion  years,  the  average  population  of  Boston  has  been  esti 
mated  at  15,731  persons.7  The  records  of  the  town  show 

1  Session  Laws,  447.  By  this  act  "  all  Protestants  of  foreign  Nations" 
who  had  resided  within  the  province  for  one  year  could  be  granted  all 
the  privileges  of  natural-born  subjects  of  the  king  of  England. 

'Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.,  3d  Series,  X,  120.  The  total  number  of 
votes  cast  for  twenty-one  candidates  was  16,197.  If  each  freeman 
voted  for  sixteen, — and  that  many  are  marked  as  elected, — the  number 
of  voters  would  be  about  one  thousand. 

*  New  England,  IV,  135. 

*  Governor  Bradstreet,  on  May  4,  1692,  had  taken  the  oath  of  office 
"  for  this  year,  or  until  there  be  a  settlement  of  government  from  the 
crown  of  England"   (Palfrey,  IV,  89). 

5  Samuel  Sewall,  Diary,  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.,  5th  Series,  VI,  79. 
8  Report  Boston  Record  Commissioners,  I,  4. 
7  Ibid. 


356     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

exactly  the  number  of  voters  in  the  annual  elections  for  the 
representatives  to  the  general  court  during  this  period.1  The 
greatest  number  of  voters  at  any  election  was  723  in  1748;  2 
the  least -was  327  in  1752 ;  and  the  average  for  the  ten  years 
was  502,  or  a  little  more  than  three  per  cent,  of  the  popula 
tion.  In  the  years  following  down  to  the  Revolution  there 
was  practically  no  change  in  the  population  of  Boston,3  and 
little  variation  in  the  size  of  the  voting  class.  The  average 
number  of  voters  in  the  decade,  1755-1764,  was  6n,4  or 
very  nearly  four  per  cent,  of  the  population;  while  in  the 
decade,  1765-1774,  immediately  preceding  the  Revolution, 
the  average  number  of  voters  had  shrunk  to  555,5  or  about 
three  and  one-half  per  cent,  of  the  population.  The  greatest 
number  of  voters  at  any  Boston  election  appears  to  have 
been  in  1763,  when  1089  persons  balloted,6  or  about  six 
and  one-half  per  cent,  of  the  population.  It  is  interesting  to 
notice  that  the  lack  of  contests  led  to  a  diminution  in  the 
number  of  electors ;  and  in  the  years  immediately  preceding 
the  Revolution,  when  the  popular  representatives  received 
almost  unanimous  elections,  the  size  of  the  voting  class  was 
smaller  than  in  earlier  years  when  local  questions  had 
aroused  the  interest  of  the  people.7 

It  has  been  estimated  that  the  potential  voters,  that  is,  all 
those  who  possessed  the  right  of  suffrage,  made  up  about 

1  Report  Record  Com.,  XIV,  72-255  passim. 

2  Ibid.,  148. 
*Ibid.,  I,  4. 

*  Ibid.,  XIV,  255-305  passim;    XVI,  10-113  passim. 
6  Ibid.,  141-278  passim;    XVIII,  21-166  passim. 

6  Ibid.,  XVI,  88.     This  election  appears  to  have  been  overlooked  by 
Ernst,  who  gives  the  figure  723  as  probably  the  greatest  number  of 
voters    (Const.  Hist,   of  Boston,  47),  a  number  surpassed  on  several 
occasions ;    and  by  Hart,  who  names  916  as  the  number  of  voters  in 
"  the   most   crowded   town   meeting  ever   held    in    Boston   before   the 
Revolution"   (Political  Science  Quarterly,  VII,  322). 

7  In  1771  the  number  of  voters  was  410,  every  one  of  whom  voted 
for  Thomas  Gushing  and  John  Hancock,  403  for  Samuel  Adams,  and 
399  for  James  Otis   (each  elector  voting  for  four  persons).     In   1773 
and  1774  almost  the  same  unanimity  existed.     On  the  other  hand,  the 
election  of  1772,  contested  somewhat,  called  out  723  voters  (Report  of 
Record  Com.,  XVIII,  53,  78,  129,  166). 


The  Suffrage  in  Massachusetts.  357 

sixteen  per  cent,  of  the  population  of  Massachusetts  at  the 
close  of  the  colonial  period  and  the  beginning  of  the  national 
epoch.1  And  accepting  this  figure,  it  appears  that  only  one 
out  of  four  or  five  of  the  qualified  voters  actually  exercised 
his  right.  This  indifference  was  only  slightly  lessened  in  the 
votes  upon  constitutional  questions  in  1 778-1 78o,2  and  in 
the  ten  years,  1780-1789  the  actual  voters  numbered  about 
three  per  cent,  of  the  population.3  It  was  not  until  after  the 
adoption  of  the  national  constitution,  and  the  introduction 
of  party  ideas  and  machinery  that  the  voting  class  was  con 
siderably  enlarged.4  Just  why  the  number  of  actual  electors 
was  so  much  smaller  proportionately  in  Massachusetts  than 
in  New  York  or  Virginia  is  not  at  once  apparent.  It  is 
probable,  however,  that  the  solidarity  of  sentiment  in  New 
England  did  not  develop  that  vigilance  upon  the  part  of  the 
elector  which  was  a  natural  outcome  of  the  jarring  factions 
of  New  York  City;  and  the  town  meeting  itself  probably 
became  so  effective  a  political  machine  that  attendance  was 
not  esteemed  important  or  interesting  as  it  was  upon  the  Vir 
ginia  election  day.  Whatever  the  cause,  the  citizen  of  Mas 
sachusetts  does  not  appear  to  take  as  great  an  interest- 
measuring  interest  by  the  exercise  of  the  suffrage  fran 
chise — in  his  colonial  elections  as  is  shown  in  some  of  the 
colonies  outside  of  New  England. 

V.  Local  Suffrage. 
A.     Town  Elections. 

A  general  feature,  if  not  indeed  a  universal  one,  in  the 
early  town  life,  both  in  Plymouth  and  the  Bay  Colony,  was 
the  common  ownership  of  the  town  lands.5  There  is  some 

1J.  F.  Jameson,  New  England  Magazine,  Jan.,  1890,  486;  G.  D. 
Luetscher,  Early  Political  Machinery  in  the  United  States,  12. 

3  Jameson,  op.  cit.,  487,  488. 

'Ibid. 

*  For  a  careful  and  interesting  study  of  the  causes  leading  to  the 
growing  participation  in  politics  of  the  potential  voters,  see  Luetscher, 
Early  Political  Machinery. 

5  Scarcely  a  topic  of  Massachusetts  history  has  called  forth  so  much 
discussion  as  the  question  of  the  origin  and  early  organization  of  the 


358     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

doubt  about  the  relationship  of  the  New  England  town  to 
the  English  parish ;  it  can  be  proved,  perhaps,  that  the  church 
congregation  was  not  the  common  unit  of  colonizing  force ; 
and  the  question  of  priority  between  towns  and  the  general 
government  may  not  at  present  be  determinable ;  but  it  is 
clear  that  in  almost  all  the  New  England  towns  there  was 
economic  partnership,  which,  by  actual  occupation,  or 
chase  from  the  Indians,  or,  most  commonly,  by  grant  from 
the  central  colonial  government,  received  a  permanent  basis 
in  the  common  ownership  of  a  tract  of  land.  The  land 
obtained  in  one  of  these  ways  was  subsequently  apportionedf 
in  part  or  wholly  to  the  original  partners  and  to  those  who 
had  later  been  joined  with  them.  The  individuals  forming 
such  a  quasi  corporation  were  the  "  commoners,"  and,  origi 
nally,  were  the  sole  "  inhabitants/'  To  these  original  in 
habitants  others  were  added  by  the  vote  of  the  town,  who 
might  be  admitted  upon  equal  terms  or  only  rent  land  and 
houses,  or  being  freeholders  yet  not  obtain  rights  of  com 
monage.  Thus  an  early  equality  of  rights  gave  place  to  an 
economic  and  political  diversity;  and  the  term  inhabitant 
came  to  include  not  only  the  original  commoners  and  their 
successors,  but  also  freeholders  who  had  no  rights  of  com 
monage,  and  householders  who  were  only  renters. 

This  term,  "  inhabitants,"  has  given  the  Massachusetts 
historians  a  great  deal  of  trouble.  Since  the  colonial  records 
did  not  frame  a  definition  of  it,  recourse  has  been  had  to  the 
English  meanings  of  the  word;  but  the  writers  have  been 
unable  even  to  agree  upon  this,  and  Coke  has  been  quoted 
against  Coke.1  In  Massachusetts  the  word  possessed  no 

Massachusetts  towns.  The  controversy  has  been  complicated  by  the 
meagreness  of  the  records,  the  failure  of  contemporary  writers  to 
define  their  terms,  and  the  desire  of  recent  writers  to  support  personal 
historical  theories.  The  present  writer  does  not  profess  to  have  the 
fulness  of  information  necessary  to  decide  the  questions  in  dispute, 
nor  is  this  work  the  proper  place  for  such  a  discussion.  All  that  can 
be  done  here  is  to  summarize  the  results  of  the  local  investigators 
and  test  the  facts  of  local  suffrage  in  Massachusetts  in  the  light  of 
the  experience  of  other  colonies. 

1  Channing,  /.  H.  U.  Studies,  II,  444 ;    C.  F.  Adams,  Mass.  Hist.  Soc. 
Proc.,  2d  Series,  VII,  178;    Goodell,  ibid.,  213.     The  intricacies  of  the 


The  Suffrage  in  Massachusetts.  359 

fixed  meaning.  It  cannot  be  held  with  Channing  that  an 
inhabitant  was  universally  a  householder  or  one  who 
manured  land  in  the  town ; 1  nor  is  it  possible  here  to  make 
the  word  synonymous  with  freeholder  alone ; 2  upon  occa 
sions  the  word  received  both  a  wider  and  a  narrower  inter 
pretation  than  the  English  uses.  The  general  court  in  1634 
imposed  an  oath  upon  inhabitants,3  and  by  an  order  of  April 
i,  required  every  "  man  of  or  above  the  age  of  twenty  yeares, 
who  hath  bene  or  shall  hereafter  be  resident  within  this  juris- 
diccon  by  the  space  of  sixe  monethes,  as  an  householder  or 
sojorner,  and  not  infranchised,"  to  swear  that  he  was  an 
inhabitant  of  the  colony,  that  he  would  acknowledge  the 
authority  of  the  established  government,  and  would  respect 
its  laws.  According  to  this  rule,  therefore,  the  inhabitants 
included  sojourners  as  well  as  householders.4  On  the  other 
hand,  the  town  of  Hampton,  New  Hampshire,  in  1662,  while 
a  part  of  the  Massachusetts  Bay  colony,  voted  in  town  meet 
ing  that  "  no  man  shall  be  judged  an  inhabitant  in  this  town, 
nor  have  power  or  liberty  to  act  in  town  affairs,  or  have 
privilege  of  commonage,  either  sweepage  or  feedage,  but  he 
that  hath  one  share  of  commonage,  at  least,  according  to  the 
first  division,  and  land  to  build  upon."  5  Other  records  show 
various  qualifications  imposed  upon  town  voters.  Almost  in 
variably  the  voter  must  previously  have  been  accepted  or 
"  settled"  in  the  town  by  vote  of  the  town  meeting  or  select- 
subject  of  inhabitancy  cannot  be  fully  appreciated  until  one  has  perused 
the  account  given  by  Mildmay  in  The  Method  and  Rule  of  Proceeding 
upon  all  Elections  .  .  .  within  the  City  of  London  [1743],  and  the 
extensive  notes  by  H.  K.  S.  Causton  in  his  edition  of  Mildmay  (1841), 
pp.  xxxvi,  53  ff.  note,  92  ff.  note.  See  also  the  ambiguous  language  of 
the  act  of  Parliament,  26,  Geo.  Ill,  ch.  100. 
*Op.  cit. 

2  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Proc.,  2d  Series,  VII,  203.     Chamberlain  believes 
that  the  inhabitants  "  included  all  male  adults  who,  either  by  general 
laws  or  town  regulations,  were  permitted  permanently  to  reside  within 
the  town  limits,  irrespective  of  their  ownership  of  lands"   (ibid.,  VII, 
241). 

3  Mass.  Col.  Rec.,  I,  115. 

*  It  should  be  stated,  however,  that  the  later  custom  called  this  the 
"  resident's"  oath. 
"New  Hampshire  Provincial -Papers,  I,  153. 


360     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

men.1  In  Haverhill  he  must  also  obtain  the  town's  consent 
to  his  voting  in  town  meeting,2  unless  he  possessed  the  quali 
fications  imposed  by  the  general  colonial  ordinance ; 3  while 
in  Watertown  he  could  be  accounted  a  "  townsman"  or 
voting  inhabitant  if  he  had  received  a  share  in  the  land  divi 
dends  or  was  admitted  with  the  consent  of  the  town.4  On 
the  other  hand  a  person  who  had  "  sojourned  in  other  mens 
houses"  for  two  years  in  Charlestown  was  spoken  of  as  an 
"  inhabitant,"  and  was  expressly  permitted  by  the  general 
court  to  purchase  land  in  the  town.5 

<      It  can  readily  be  understood  that  such  variations  in  local 

\  custom,  linked  with  the  different  names  applied  to  the  voters 

>jn  town  meetings, — as  inhabitants,  freeholders,  freemen  or 

/townsmen, — would  lead  to  difficulties  in  making  generaliza- 

{  tions  respecting  the  suffrage  in  towns.    We  shall  be  near  the 

truth  if  we  think  of  the  suffrage  in  these  Massachusetts  towns 

as  exercised  by  the  householders  who  were  also  heads  of 

families.6     There  may  have  been  some  voters,  who,  by  local 

consent  or  by  the  general  laws,  did  not  fall  within  the  class 

of  householders,  but  their  numbers  must  have  been  few  and 

their  influence  slight.7    The  ancient  English  meaning  of  the 

1  Dorchester  Records,   in   Boston   Rec.    Com.   Rept.,   IV,   8;     Bond, 
History  of  Watertown,  II,  998 ;    Coffin,  Newbury,  23 ;    Chase,  Haver- 
hill,  89.     A  most  interesting  statement  of  the  principles  of  the  early 
land  grants  is  to  be  found  in  the  order  of  Watertown  (Bond,  II,  996), 
that  "  Those  ffreemen  of  the  Congregation  shall  build  and  dwell  upon 
their  Lotts  at  ye  Towne  Plott,  and  not  to  alienate  them  by  selling  or 
Exchanging  them  to  any  forrainer,  but  to  ffreemen  of  the  congrega 
tion,   it  being  our  real  intent  to  sitt  down  here  close  togither,  and 
therefore,   these   Lotts   were   granted   to   those    ffreemen   yt   inhabited 
most  remote  from  ye  meeting-house,  and  dwell  most  scattered." 

2  Chase,  Haverhill,  89. 
8  See  post. 

4  Bond,  Watertown,  II,  998. 

"Corey,  History  of  Maiden,  81   (1640). 

*  This  opinion  is  based  not  upon  any  express  stipulation  found  in  the 
town  records  or  the  laws,  but  upon  the  general  sense  and  spirit  of  the 
town  regulations. 

7  C.  F.  Adams  has  pointed  out  that  under  Article  XII.  of  the  Body 
of  Liberties  of  1641  all  the  men  (not  servants)  of  the  colony  had  the 
right  to  attend  any  public  meetings  or  Courts,  and  there  in  an  orderly 


The  Suffrage  in  Massachusetts.  361 

word  inhabitant,  as  equivalent  to  householder,1  was  the 
common,  although  perhaps  not  universal,  acceptation  of  the 
word  in  Massachusetts. 

But  while  the  towns  had  considerable  volition  in  fixing  the 
local  suffrage,  the  central  government  did  not  hesitate  to 
legislate  upon  the  subject.  Mention  has  already  been  made 
of  the  provisions  of  the  Plymouth  laws  upon  the  subject,  and 
it  remains  now  only  to  summarize  the  legislation  of  the  Bay 
Colony.  About  four  years  after  the  restriction  of  the  free- 
manship  to  church-members,  a  policy  of  almost  equal  severity 
was  adopted  with  reference  to  the  local  suffrage.  In  Sep 
tember,  1635,  the  general  court  ordered 

"  that  none  but  ffreemen  shall  have  any  vote  in  any  towne,  in  any 
accon  of  aucthoritie,  or  necessity,  or  that  which  belongs  to  them  by 
vertue  of  their  ffreedome,  as  receaveing  inhabitants,  &  layeing  out  of 
lotts,  etc."  2 

By  this  law  and  future  legislation  the  freemen  were  given 
entire  control  of  town  affairs.  They  had  the  power  to  dis 
pose  of  town  lands;  to  make  ordinances  and  enforce  them 
by  fines;  and  to  elect  their  town  officers.3  Later  they  ob 
tained  the  power  of  fixing  the  price  of  labor  in  the  towns,4 
and  of  taxing  all  inhabitants.5  For  twelve  years  the  free 
men  retained  these  exclusive  privileges,  but  in  1647  some 
political  rights  were  restored  to  the  town  inhabitants.  The 
general  court  "  taking  into  considration  ye  usefull  pts  & 

way  t9  make  propositions;  and  that  the  viva  voce  voting  in  the  town 
meeting  would  give  considerable  opportunity  for  such  persons  to  take 
part  in  the  town  affairs  (Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Proc.,  2d  Series,  VII,  206). 
On  the  other  hand,  it  should  be  remembered  that  voting  by  "papers" 
was  early  introduced  into  some  of  the  town  elections.  It  is  found  in 
1659  in  Dorchester  (Boston  Rec.  Com.  Kept.,  IV,  99)  ;  before  1637  in 
Newbury  (Coffin,  Newbury,  19)  ;  by  1682  in  Haverhill  (Chase,  Haver- 
hill,  137)  ;  and  in  the  Plymouth  Colony  towns  in  1643-4  (Records, 
Laws,  42). 

1  H.  Cox,  Antient  Parliamentary  Elections  (London,  1868),  178,  179. 

2  Mass.  Col.  Rec.,  I,  161. 
3 1  bid.,  172 

4  Ibid.,  183. 

5  Ibid.,  231.  • 


362     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

abilities  of  divrs  inhabitants  amongst  us,  wch  are  not  free 
men,  wch,  if  imp'ved  to  publike  use,  ye  affaires  of  this  Comon 
wealth  may  be  ye  easier  carried  [to]  an  end,"  impowered  the 
freemen  of  the  respective  towns  to  choose  any  non-free  in 
habitants,  having  taken  the  oath  of  fidelity  and  being  over 
twenty-four  years  of  age,  to  be  jurors  and  voters  in  the 
town  meetings,  provided  they  had  not  been  detected  or  con 
victed  of  evil  carriage  against  the  government  or  churches.1 
In  1658  the  qualifications  of  such  non-free  voters  were 
stated  more  definitely  and  at  the  same  time  made  more  rigid. 
Thereafter  town  voters  were 

"  all  Englishmen,  that  are  settled  Inhabitants  and  householders  in  any 
town,  of  the  age  of  twenty-four  years,  and  of  honest  &  good  Conver 
sations,  being  Rated  at  twenty  pounds  estate  in  a  single  Country  Rate, 
and  that  have  taken  the  Oath  of  Fidelity  to  this  Government,  and  no 
other  (except  freemen)  may  be  Chosen  Select  men,  Jurors,  or  Con 
stables,  and  have  their  vote,  in  the  Choice  of  Select  men,  ...  as  also 
where  no  Select  men  are,  to  have  their  vote  in  ordering  schooles, 
hearding  of  cattle,  laying  out  highwayes,  and  distributing  Lands."  a 

The  lines  were  drawn  still  more  closely  in  1670,  when  the 
property  qualification  of  non-freeman  voters  was  raised  to 
eighty  pounds  taxable  estate,  but  those  at  the  time  possessing 
the  right  to  vote  were  not  to  be  deprived  of  it.3  Finally,  in 
March,  1 680-81  it  was  provided  that  any  of  the  inhabitants 
of  a  town,  although  not  possessing  the  right  to  vote,  could  be 
chosen  by  the  qualified  electors  to  fill  any  of  the  town  offices ; 
and  after  election  and  officiation  in  the  position,  such  in 
habitants  for  ever  afterwards  should  have  free  liberty  to 
vote  or  to  be  chosen  into  any  town  office.4 

After  the  receipt  of  the  charter  of  1691  it  became  necessary 

1  Mass.  Col.  Rec.,  II,  197.  Any  one  convicted  as  above  could  vote 
again  if  the  court  sentencing  him  saw  fit  to  restore  him  to  his  former 
liberty.  The  majority  of  the  selectmen  must  be  freemen. 

"Ibid.,  IV,  Pt.  I,  336;  Code  of  1660,  76.  The  proviso  was  still 
retained  that  a  majority  of  the  selectmen  must  be  freemen. 

3  Code  of  1672,  147,  148. 

*  Mass.  Col.  Rec.,  V,  306.  This  has  been  wrongly  interpreted  as 
doing  away  altogether  with  the  property  qualification  for  non-free 
town  voters  (Ernst,  Const.  Hist,  of  Boston,  22). 


The  Suffrage  in  Massachusetts.  363 

to  set  a  new  qualification  for  the  local  suffrage.  In  the  fall 
of  1692  a  law  was  passed  which  gave  the  local  franchise  to 
"  freeholders  and  other  Inhabitants  of  each  Town  Ratable 
at  Twenty  Pounds  Estate,  to  one  single  Rate  besides  the 
Poll."  1  In  1700  it  was  enacted  that  no  person,  coming  to 
reside  in  a  town,  although  otherwise  qualified,  should  be  al 
lowed  to  participate  in  town  elections  until  he  had  applied  to 
the  selectmen  of  the  town  for  admission  as  an  inhabitant,  and 
had  been  accepted  by  the  town  authorities ; 2  and  in  1 722, 
when  a  question  had  arisen  whether  the  twenty  pounds  quali 
fication  applied  to  freeholders  as  well  as  other  inhabitants, 
the  general  court  ordered  that  the  fixed  property  qualification 
be  required  of  all  town  voters.3  After  this  date  there  was 
no  change  in  the  local  suffrage  qualification,  although  a  num 
ber  of  administrative  features  were  introduced;  at  twenty 
pounds  taxable  property  the  qualification  remained  during 
the  entire  provincial  period. 

B.     Church  Elections. 

According  to  the  theory  of  church  organization  adopted  by 
the  Puritans  the  members  of  the  church  possessed  the  right 
to  choose  their  own  ecclesiastical  officers.  But  this  wide 
liberty  early  brought  too  great  a  diversity  of  opinions  and 
doctrines  among  the  clergy,  and  led  to  the  limitation,  both 
in  Plymouth  and  Massachusetts,  of  the  choice  of  the  church 
to  "  approved"  ministers,4  that  is,  those  acceptable  to  the 
ruling  religious  classes.  The  inevitable  evils  of  association 
of  town  and  church  called  forth  the  following  enactment  in 
Massachusetts,  which  gives  the  ideal  of  ecclesiastical  elec 
tions  in  the  colony : — 

1  October  12,  1692,  Session  Laws,  37. 

-  May   29,    1700,   Session   Laws,  203,   204.     "  No  person   whatsoever 
coming  to  reside  or  dwell  within  any  Town  in  this  Province,   (other 
than  Freeholders  or  Proprietors  of  Land  in  such  Town,  or  those  born, 
or  that  have  served  an  Apprenticeship  there,  and  have  not  removed 
and  become  Inhabitants  elsewhere)   shall  be  admitted  to  the  privilege 
of  Election  in  such  Town  (though  otherwise  qualified),"  unless  he  shall 
apply  for  and  obtain  the  approbation  of  the  selectmen. 

3  May  30,  1722,  Session  Laws,  367. 

*  Plymouth  Records,  Laws,  67. 


364     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

"  Every  Church  hath  free  liberty  of  Calling,  Election  and  Ordination 
of  all  her  Officers,  from  time  to  time,  provided  they  be  able,  pious,  and 
Orthodox :  For  the  better  explanation  of  the  said  Law,  and  as  an 
addition  thereunto,  this  Court  doth  Order  and  Declare,  and  be  it 
hereby  Ordered  and  Enacted,  that  by  the  Church,  is  to  be  meant,  such 
as  are  in  full  Communion  only;  .  .  .  and  that  no  Inhabitant  in  any 
Town  shall  challenge  a  right  unto  or  act  in  the  Calling  or  Election  of 
such  Officer  or  Minister,  until  he  be  in  full  communion,  upon  the 
penalty  of  being  accounted  a  disturber  of  peace  and  order."1 

Under  the  charter  of  1691  a  change  was  made  in  the 
method  of  choosing  the  minister.  This  may  have  been  due 
to  an  appreciation  of  the  inconsistency  in  permitting  a  choice 
by  the  church-members  only,  and  the  collection  of  church- 
rates  from  all  the  town  inhabitants.  The  new  act  of  1692 
provided  that  orthodox  ministers  could  be  chosen  in  each 
town  by  the  "  major  part  of  the  Inhabitants"  in  town-meet 
ing,  and  that  all  the  town  should  be  obliged  to  pay  towards 
his  support.2  Not  six  months  later  this  election  by  town 
meeting  was  changed  to  a  choice  by  the  "  major  part  of  such 
Inhabitants  as  do  there  usually  attend  on  the  Publick  Wor 
ship  of  God,  and  are  by  Law  duly  qualified  for  Voting  in 
Town  Affairs."  3  In  1695  another  change  was  made.4  The 
minister  was  first  to  be  chosen  by  the  church,  and  then  sub 
mitted  to  the  qualified  inhabitants  of  the  town ;  5  and  in 
case  of  disapprobation  by  the  town,  a  council  from  the 
neighboring  churches  could  decide  finally. 

The  injustice  of  excluding  any  of  the  qualified  taxpayers 
from  a  voice  in  the  choice  of  minister  was  thus  avoided.  On 
the  other  hand,  early  in  the  eighteenth  century,  certain  dis 
senting  sects  were  released  from  taxation  for  the  established 
ministers  upon  condition  that  they  would  support  and  regu 
larly  attend  public  worship  according  to  their  own  beliefs. 
To  allow  these  persons  to  participate  in  the  town  elections  of 
ministers  would  be  equally  unfair;  and  in  1728  an  act  which 

1  Code  of  1672,  46. 

2  Session  Laws,  35. 

3  February  8,  1692-93,  Reprint  of  1699,  39,  40. 

4  May  29,  1695,  ibid.,  81. 

5  Members  of  the  church  might,  of  course,  vote  in  the  church  election 
and  in  the  town  election. 


The  Suffrage  in  Massachusetts.  365 

exempted  them  from  paying  church   taxes,   also  debarred 
them  from  voting  in  the  towns  upon  any  church  matters.1 

C.    Militia  Elections. 

The  Puritan  colonies,  with  the  exception  of  New  Haven,2 
granted  wider  privileges  in  the  choice  of  militia  officers  than 
in  any  other  form  of  popular  elections.  Almost  universally 
the  choice  of  these  officers  was  left  to  all  the  soldiers  of  the 
company  or  regiment.  Thus  Massachusetts  in  1636  provided 
that  a  colonel  and  lieutenant-colonel  should  be  chosen  by 
the  "  men"  of  each  regiment  and  submitted  to  the  general 
court  for  approval ;  while  the  officers  lower  in  rank  were  to 
be  nominated  by  the  respective  towns,  and  the  council  was 
directed  to  select  the  incumbent  from  the  names  submitted 
to  them.3  The  elective  process  is  made  more  definite  by  an 
order  of  March  9,  1636-7,  which  provided  that 

"  All  persons  of  any  trayned  band,  both  freemen  &  others,  who  have 
taken  the  oath  of  residents,  or  shall  take  the  same,  &  being  no  cove 
nant  servant  in  household  wth  any  other,  shall  have  their  votes  in 
nomination  of  those  p'sons  who  are  to  bee  appointed  captaines,  or  other 
inferior  officers  of  the  same  band,  p'vided  they  nominate  none  but 
such  as  shalbe  freemen;  for  it  is  the  intent  &  order  of  the  Court  that 
no  person  shall  henceforth  bee  chosen  to  any  office  in  the  comon- 
wealth  but  such  as  is  a  freeman."  * 

It  was  provided  in  1647  that  all  freemen  whether  exempt 
from  militia  service  or  not,  should  have  a  vote  in  the  choice 

1  May  29,  1728,  Session  Laws,  405. 

2  See  post. 

3  Mass.  Col.  Rec.,  I,  187. 

*  Ibid.,  188.  This  liberal  suffrage  was  not  extended  to  the  choice  of 
sergeant-major-general,  who,  in  1643,  was  to  be  chosen  by  the  body 
of  freemen  at  the  annual  court  of  elections,  nor  to  the  election  of  the 
sergeant-majors  in  the  shires.  In  the  latter  case  the  deputies  were  to 
nominate  to  their  towns  suitable  freemen  for  the  position,  and  the 
freemen  of  the  towns  were  to  vote  by  ballot  for  these  nominees  or  for 
any  other  freemen  (ibid.,  II,  49,  50).  Two  years  later  the  sergeant- 
majors  could  be  chosen  not  only  by  freemen,  but  by  "all  yt  have 
taken  ye  oath  of  fidelity,  or  shall  take  it  before  ye  election  (except 
servants  or  unsetled  p'sons)"  (ibid.,  117)- 


366     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

of  military  officers.1  After  1656,  a  similar  privilege  was  ex 
tended  to  householders;  and  the  militia  suffrage  until  abol 
ished  by  the  general  court  was  extended  to  every  freeman, 
householder,  and  listed  soldier  who  had  taken  the  oath  of 
fidelity.2 

There  was  some  doubt,  however,  as  to  the  right  of  the 
general  court  to  delegate  the  choice  of  militia  officers  to  the 
voters;  and  in  1669  "  the  Court  considering  the  direction" 
of  the  patent,  ordered  that  all  commissioned  officers  except 
the  major-general  and  "  Admiral  by  Sea,"  should  be  chosen 
by  the  general  court ;  and  the  inferior  officers  appointed  by 
the  commissioned  officers.3  In  this  way  popular  elections  for 
militia  officers  were  discontinued,  although  at  a  later  date  the 
committee  upon  militia  in  each  town  was  authorized  to  pre 
sent  to  the  general  court  the  names  of  two  or  three  proper 
persons  for  each  office.  Formal  militia  elections  ceased  in 
1669,  not  to  be  resumed  for  over  a  hundred  years. 

In  Plymouth  military  officers  above  the  grade  of  ser 
geant  were  to  be  chosen  by  the  towns  in  a  plural  number  and 
selections  made  by  the  general  court;  the  inferior  officers 
were  to  be  appointed  by  the  higher  officers  with  the  "  consent 
of  the  Body"  (of  the  soldiers?).4  In  practice  even  the 
higher  officers  appear  to  have  been  chosen  by  the  train 
bands;5  but  not  until  1667  was  the  following  order  con 
cerning  these  elections  passed :  "  In  reference  to  milletary 
concernments  It  is  enacted  by  the  Court  that  noe  single 
p'sons  vnder  twenty  yeares  of  age  either  children  or  servants 
shall  voate  as  to  that  accompt  or  any  that  are  not  settled 
Inhabitants  of  that  place  and  have  taken  the  oath  of  fideli- 
tie."  6  This  continued  the  basis  of  such  elections  until  the 
province  charter  of  1691  gave  the  appointment  of  military 
officers  to  the  governor  and  council. 

1  Mass.  Col.  Rec.,  I,  191,  222. 

8  Code  of  1660,  56. 

*Mass.  Col.  Rec.,  IV,  Pt.  II,  422;    Code  of  1672,  116. 

4  Plymouth  Records,  Laws,  39. 

B  Court  Records,  III,  89. 

8  Plymouth  Records,  Laws,  219. 


The  Suffrage  in  Massachusetts.  367 

D.     Voting  concerning  Land  Matters. 

It  has  been  noted  already  that  the  Massachusetts  town  life 
had  its  origin  at  about  the  same  time  as  the  common  owner 
ship  of  lands;  in  some  cases  the  land  ownership  antedated 
town  organization,  but  almost  universally  the  political  and 
economic  community  developed  together.  At  first  the  com 
moners  probably  constituted  the  entire  body  politic  of  the 
town;  and,  until  such  time  as  the  non-commoners  acquired 
an  undue  influence  over  land  matters,  the  subject  of  the  com 
mon  lands  was  discussed  in  open  town  meeting.1  Early  or 
late,  however,  the  distinction  between  the  civil  and  the 
property  rights  of  the  inhabitants  was  established.  The 
separation  of  the  commoners  from  the  non-commoners  in 
the  settling  of  land  matters  did  not  come  at  any  one  time 
throughout  the  colony;  but  each  town  worked  out  its  own 
solution  of  the  problem.  It  might  come  almost  at  the  be 
ginning  of  town  life,  or  it  might  be  deferred  for  several 
generations  after  the  founding  of  the  town;  it  might  be 
accompanied  with  compromise  grants  of  land  to  non-com 
moners,  or  it  might  leave  the  latter  altogether  beyond  the 
pale  of  participation  in  the  common  lands.2  Thus  in  Water- 
town  as  early  as  1635  the  rights  of  commonage  were  re 
stricted  to  those  already  possessing  that  right  or  purchasing 
it  from  a  former  holder;3  in  1651  an  agreement  was  made 
between  Charlestown  and  the  settlers  of  Maiden  that  the 
rights  of  commonage  in  the  latter  place  should  be  limited 
to  the  existing  number  of  dwelling-houses ; 4  in  Dorchester 
in  1642  a  question  of  land  cultivation  in  "  the  necke  of 
Land"  was  settled  by  a  vote  of  the  original  lot-holders  in 
the  "  neck,"  and  where  a  man  had  purchased  more  than  one 
lot  he  was  entitled  to  a  proportionate  voice  in  the  manage 
ment  of  the  commons.5  On  the  other  hand,  in  Haverhill 
the  town  legislated  upon  land  matters  for  fifty  years  after 

1  Egleston,  /.  H.  U.  Stud.,  IV,  581,  582. 

2  Ibid.,  585,  586. 

3  Bond,  IVatertown,  II,  995. 

4  Corey,  Maiden,  no. 

6  Kept.  Boston  Rcc.  Com.,  IV,  49,  99. 


368     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

the  settlement,1   and  frequent  contests  took  place  between 
the  proprietors  and  the  non-commoners. 

The  general  court  early  passed  orders  regulating  the  care 
of  common  lands.  Thus,  in  1643,  ^  placed  the  direction  of 
common  fields,  that  were  fenced  and  used  for  the  raising  of 
grain,  in  the  control  of  "  those  who  have  the  great1"  quantity 
in  such  feilds;"2  and  after  a  short  interval  in  which  the 
decision  of  these  matters  was  left  to  the  selectmen  or  free-f 
men  of  the  towns,3  this  principle  of  voting  in  proportion  ta 
the  share  held,  was  re-affirmed.4  By  later  orders  of  the 
court  the  number  of  voters  upon  matters  relating  to  the 
town  commons  was  limited  to  the  original  proprietors  or 
their  successors  and  such  as  had  received  grants  from  the 
town  or  had  purchased  another  person's  share.5  In 
Plymouth,  on  the  other  hand,  not  until  1682  were  meet 
ings  of  land  proprietors  distinct  from  the  towns  legally 
authorized.6 

But  no  uniform  method  of  voting  upon  such  matters  ap 
pears  to  have  been  adopted  before  1692.  The  Plymouth 
order  of  1682  appears  to  have  provided  for  a  majority  vote 
according  to  the  number  of  proprietors,7  and  within  the 
Massachusetts  towns  also  it  was  sometimes  the  individual, 
not  the  amount  of  his  interest,  which  determined  the  vote.8 
But  as  time  went  on  the  property  interest  became  stronger; 
the  town  meetings  and  the  non-commoners  lost  their  share 
in  the  control  of  land  affairs,  and  at  last  these  matters  came 
to  be  settled  in  distinct  meetings  of  the  proprietors,  where 
each  man  was  entitled  to  an  influence  proportionate  to  the 
amount  of  his  interest  in  the  lands.  The  transition  from 
the  individual  to  the  property  basis  is  shown  in  a  law  of 
1692  which  provided  for  voting  in  proprietors'  meetings 
according  to  each  man's  interest,  where  such  interest  had 

1  Chase,  Haverhill,  204,  215,  251  ff. 

J  Mass.  Col.  Rec.,  II,  39;    10  May,  1643. 

*  Ibid.,  49',   17  Oct.,  1643. 

'  Ibid.,  195;    26  May,  1647. 

5  Ibid.,  IV,  Pt.  1,274,275,417. 

8  Plymouth  Records,  Laws,  257. 

7  Ibid. 

8  Corey,  Maiden,  368,  376;    Coffin,  Newbury,  140,  144. 


The  Suffrage  in  Massachusetts.  369 

been  determined;    and  for  voting  as  individuals  where  no 
such  determination  had  been  reached.1 

Thus  the  cycle  of  change  was  completed;  the  control  of 
the  land,  originally  obtained  by  a  group  of  partners,  was 
returned  to  them  or  to  their  lawful  successors.  The  con 
fusion  of  economic  and  political  interests  in  the  early  activity 
of  the  towns  gave  way  to  a  distinct  separation  of  the  two 
phases  of  town  life;  and  even  the  equal  sharing  of  all  pro 
prietors  was  displaced  by  an  influence  graded  according  to 
wealth.  The  participation  of  all  the  inhabitants  in  the  use, 
control  and  ownership  of  land — that  economic  democracy 
so  common  in  the  colonies — was  giving  way  to  the  laissez 
faire  doctrine  of  private  ownership  of  land.  The  communal 
lands  were  divided  into  shares,  distributed  to  the  proprietors, 
or  to  the  freeholders,  or,  in  a  few  cases,  to  all  the  inhabi 
tants;  and  the  village  community  based  upon  land  ceased 
to  exist.  The  town  abdicated  to  its  citizens  the  control  of 
the  commons. 

1  Session  Laws,  1692,  38. 


24 


CHAPTER    XII. 
THE  SUFFRAGE  IN  NEW  HAMPSHIRE. 

New  Hampshire's  earliest  political  organization  had  its 
origin,  as  was  so  frequently  the  case  in  New  England,  in 
the  voluntary  association  of  actual  settlers.  English  patents 
and  non-resident  proprietors  played  only  a  meagre  part  in 
the  early  government  of  the  colony.  Of  the  four  principal 
settlements,  one,  Hampton,  was  from  the  first  considered 
part  of  Massachusetts  and  was  settled  in  order  to  hold  the 
northern  territory ; 1  the  other  three,  Dover,  Exeter,  and 
Strawberry  Bank  (Portsmouth),  were  self-originative  politi 
cal  entities.  Exeter  was  settled  by  Wheelwright  and  his 
fellow-Antinomians  from  Massachusetts,  and  on  July  4, 
1639,  they  adopted  the  following  interesting  basis  of  govern 
ment: 

"  Whereas  it  has  pleased  the  lord  to  move  the  heart  of  our  Dread 
Soveraigne  Charles,  by  the  grace  of  god  King  of  England,  Scotland 
France  &  Ireland,  to  grant  license  &  liberty  to  sundry  of  his  subjects 
to  plant  them  selves  in  the  Westerne  partes  of  America;  Wee  his 
loyall  subjects,  brethren  of  the  church  of  Exceter,  situate  &  lying  upon 
the  river  of  Piscataquacke  wth  other  inhabitants  there  considering 
wth  our  selves  the  holy  will  of  god  and  our  owne  necessity  that  we 
should  not  live  wth  out  wholsome  lawes  &  civil  government  amongst 
us,  of  wh  we  are  altogether  destitute,  doe  in  the  name  of  Christ  &  in 
the  sight  of  god  combine  our  selves  together,  to  erect  &  set  up 
amongst  us  such  government  as  shall  be  to  our  best  discerning,  agree 
able  to  the  will  of  god,  professing  our  selves  subjects  to  our  Sov 
eraigne  Lord  King  Charles  according  to  the  libertys  of  our  English 
Colony  of  Massachusetts  &  binding  our  selves  solemnly  by  the  grace 
&  helpe  of  Christ  &  in  his  name  &  feare  to  submit  our  selves  to  such 
godly  &  Christian  laws  as  are  established  in  the  Realme  of  England 
to  our  best  knowledge,  &  to  all  other  such  lawes  \vh  shall  upon  good 
grounds  be  made  &  inacted  amongst  us  according  to  god  yt  we  may 
live  quietly  &  peaceablely  together  in  all  godlyness  and  honesty."  2 

1J.  Dow,  History  of  the  Town  of  Hampton,  6-9. 
2  July  4,  1639;    C.  H.  Bell,  History  of  the  Town  of  Exeter,  15;    New 
Hampshire  Provincial  Laws,  I,  744. 
370 


The  Suffrage  in  New  Hampshire.  371 

The  inhabitants  near  Dover,  under  the  Hilton  patent,  also 
found  themselves  without  an  adequate  organization,  and, 
in  1640,  adopted  a  frame  similar  in  its  political  features  to 
that  of  Exeter,  but  lacking  the  frequent  allusions  to  the 
Deity  which  the  Exeter  document  contained. 

"  Whereas  sundry  mischiefs  and  inconveniences  have  befallen  us, 
and  more  and  greater  may,  in  regard  of  want  of  civil  government,  his 
most  gracious  Majesty  having  settled  no  order  for  us  to  our  knowl 
edge:  We,  whose  names  are  unwritten,  being  inhabitants  upon  the 
river  Piscataqua,  having  voluntarily  agreed  to  combine  ourselves  into 
a  body  politic,  that  we  may  the  more  comfortably  enjoy  the  benefit 
of  his  Majesty's  laws,  together  with  all  such  laws  as  shall  be  con 
cluded  by  a  major  part  of  the  freemen  of  our  Society,  in  case  they  be 
not  repugnant  to  the  laws  of  England,  and  administered  in  behalf  of 
his  majesty.  And  this  we  have  mutually  promised  and  engaged  to 
do,  and  so  continue  till  his  excellent  Majesty  shall  give  other  orders 
concerning  us.  .  .  ."  J 

In  a  similar  manner  the  settlers  at  Strawberry  Bank  (or 
Portsmouth)  appear  to  have  formed  an  organization, — 
although  the  text  of  the  agreement  has  not  been  pre 
served, — and  elected  a  governor  and  two  assistants.2  At 
the  same  time  they  chose  an  Episcopal  minister,  made  a 
grant  of  land  for  glebe  purposes,  and  appointed  two  church 
wardens/'5 

These  agreements  and  the  simple  rules  exacted  under 
them  contain  nearly  all  the  political  activity  which  New 
Hampshire  produced  before  the  union  with  Massachusetts; 
and  these  associations,  it  is  interesting  to  note,  were  not 
entered  upon  until  a  number  of  years  after  the  first  settle 
ment  in  1623.  It  is  remarkable  also,  that  these  documents, 
so  far  as  preserved,  do  not  ignore  the  English  king  and 
government  as  was  done  in  several  cases  in  New  Haven 
and  Rhode  Island,  but  explicitly  affirm  the  allegiance  due 
to  the  monarch.  No  general  government  was  erected  by 
these  local  agreements,  as  was  the  case  in  Connecticut;  the 

1  Oct.  22,  1640;  New  Hampshire  Provincial  Papers,  I,  126;  N.  H. 
Laws,  I,  746. 

2N.  Adams,  Annals  of  Portsmouth,  26,  27;    N.  H.  Laws,  I,  744. 
3  Adams,  Portsmouth,  27. 


372     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

inhabitants  might  be  called  freemen  of  the  distinct  towns, 
but  not  of  a  larger  political  entity. 

In  Dover  and  Portsmouth  the  inhabitants  were  not  con 
tent  with  their  indigenous  governments,  which  do  not  ap 
pear  to  have  been  well  administered; 1  and  as  early  as  1639 
they  made  overtures  to  Massachusetts  for  a  union  with 
that  colony.  Legal,  ecclesiastical,  and  even  forcible  con 
tests  occurred  in  the  New  Hampshire  towns ; 2  and,  tired  at 
last  of  their  own  disorder,  Dover  and  Portsmouth,  in  June, 
1641,  accepted  the  terms  of  Massachusetts  for  admission 
into  the  Bay  colony.3  The  settlers  were  to  be  accounted 
inhabitants  of  Massachusetts;  local  courts  were  established 
for  the  towns;  the  inhabitants  were  exempted  from  any 
public  charges  except  for  purposes  directly  affecting  them 
selves  ;  and  "  also  the  inhabitants  there  are  alowed  to  send 
two  deputies  from  the  whole  ryver  to  the  Court  at  Boston."  4 

At  first  the  Massachusetts  authorities  would  have  ex 
tended  their  principle  of  religious  restrictions  upon  the  suf 
frage  to  the  new  territory,  and  in  May,  1642,  it  was  pro 
vided  "  that  it  shalbee  in  the  power  of  any  Cort  there  to 
admit  &  sweare  freemen,  so  they  bee  qualified  according  to 
law."  5  But  such  a  policy  would  have  been  almost  a  pro 
hibitive  one,  and  in  the  fall  of  the  same  year  a  more  liberal 
rule  was  adopted  according  to  which 

"  all  the  p'sent  inhabitants  of  Pascataq  [=  Dover  and  Portsmouth] 
who  formerly  were  free  there  shall  haVe  liberty  of  freemen  in  their 
severall  townes  to  manage  all  their  towne  affairs,  &  shall  each  towne 
send  a  deputy  to  the  Gen^all  Court,  though  they  bee  not  at  p'sent 
church  members."6 

A  year  later,  Exeter  also  was  admitted  as  a  Massachusetts 
town,7  the  excommunicate  Wheelwright  going  in  exile  into 
the  Maine  territory.8 

1 J.  Belknap,  History  of  New  Hampshire,  I,  54. 
2  Palfrey,  New  England,  I,  587-592. 
8  Mass.  Col.  Rec.,  I,  324,  332. 
*/Wd.,  342. 
6  Ibid.,  II,  5. 

6  Ibid.,  29. 

7  Ibid.,  37,  38,  43- 

8  Palfrey,  I,  593. 


The  Suffrage  in  New  Hampshire.  373 

For  almost  forty  years  the  New  Hampshire  settlements 
remained  under  Massachusetts  jurisdiction,  during  which 
time  the  laws  of  the  latter  colony  were  enforced  in  the 
northern  towns.  No  further  concessions  in  the  matter  of 
the  suffrage  appear  to  have  been  granted ;  and  the  qualifica 
tions  of  the  voters  in  Massachusetts  were  required  of  voters 
in  the  New  Hampshire  towns,  except  in  the  case  of  those 
who  were  not  church-members  at  the  time  of  the  union.1 

In  1677,  partly  through  the  instrumentality  of  Edward 
Randolph,  a  decision  was  obtained  from  the  English  chief 
justices  to  the  effect  that  the  New  Hampshire  towns  were 
outside  the  jurisdiction  of  Massachusetts,  and  also  that 
Mason  had  no  political  rights  in  the  settlement.2  This  de 
cision  left  it  to  the  Crown  of  England  to  give  a  proper 
form  of  government  to  the  colony.  Accordingly,  in  Sep 
tember,  1679,  a  commission  was  executed  for  a  president 
and  six  named  councillors;  and  these  officers  were  given 
the  privilege  of  adopting  "  such  rules  and  methods  (as  to 
the  persons  who  are  to  chuse  their  Deputies  and  ye  time  and 
place  of  meeting)  as  they  shall  judge  most  conveinent."  3 
In  exercising  this  power  President  Cutt  and  his  council 
adopted  a  novel  and  by  no  means  popular  method  of  deter- 
mining°the  voters  in  the  four  towns.  After  obtaining  from 
the  town  selectmen  a  list  of  the  names  and  estates  of  the 
inhabitants,  the  president  and  council  proceeded  to  select  by 
name  from  the  lists  those  persons  who  should  be  privileged 
to  vote  in  the  first  election  for  assemblymen.4  No  general 
qualifications  for  voters  were  stated,  but  the  simple  will  of 
the  governing  board  gave  the  right  of  the  suffrage  to  one 
man  and  withheld  it  from  another.  The  proportion  of 
voters,  209  out  of  a  population  of  about  four  thousand,5  was 
not  in  itself  so  low  as  to  cause  dissatisfaction,  but  the  arbi 
trary  method  of  selecting  the  voters,  and  the  evident  dis- 

1  See  ante  under  Maine. 

2  Belknap,  New  Hampshire,  I,  164-169. 

3  N.  H.  Provincial  Papers,  I,  373 ;   N.  H.  Laws,  I,  6. 

4  N.  H.  Laws,  I,  11-15  note,  779.     Seventy-one  persons  were  named 
as  voters   in   Portsmouth,   57  in   Hampton,   20   in   Exeter,   and  61    in 
Dover;    or  209  in  all. 

5  Ibid.,  lix,  776. 


374     Mme  amrrmjp  rrmmaust  sx  me  cmgus*  LOJcikv. 


- 
^n«ie"  rie  rame 

re-  r^c  sciiecr  . 


o 
for  a 


"    •-     I"  "        '  :  1"  ~. 


also  likss  ±e 


Cotfs  Codebv 


S.V,  H  Laxi.  1-7 


r  L 


375 


7*  as  directed.  to  hold  groera* 
ties  ~  doebr  ekcte*i  bv  true  M 
and  from  his  writs  we  kar 
c^aI:5c£,tS'.ti  than  thst  of  fret 
bears  the  g-oversor's  n^nae. 
clause  of  the     ^>^"€nior"5  en 


e 

in  any  Town  of  this  Provrricc  of  Twer^- 
no  other."  5     Xo  arternpt  wss  rrsstoe  to  spe 
vs.I^e  of  the  freehold  ^rrrrl  ifter  th 
Ancrcs  orrer  the  Docrrrntc  of  N~*TT 
Tbe  <yrer±rotw  of  An<iro*  1-eft  tie 
witboct  2TTT 

visioo   foe  thgir  kc2l  poScsI  rjeeds,  o 
foor  to-wss  met  in  JEr-S-rr.  16^9-90  s 
of  self-coTernirserrL     The  seep?  in  tbe  GL 
shire  cir  ered  ITOGL  the  s^rts  of  rt    .  "  rt:  :G 
Erg-l2n*i  e*j&-vcies-  wb-ere  the  coxr?  z-ii 
ters  were  TT 


otncer?  were  to    e  a  preso«nt,  serrftsrj 


town.  tese  occsrs 


-        :     -  "  -    -  .  . 


mt'^n_     *??  te 


-      '     '  '  : 


:     -     -       -    , 

*""""  ".».—      — 


I.  63* 
-  Las*.  L 
.  :  .V.  / 


376     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

appear  satisfied  with  the  Massachusetts  form  of  government. 
The  petition  of  February,  1689-90,  for  the  union  was  signed 
by  three  hundred  and  seventy-two  persons,1  who  must  have 
included  the  greater  part  of  the  freeholders  of  the  four 
towns. 

In  1692  the  government  was  resumed  by  the  Crown,  and 
again  in  his  commission  the  royal  governor  was  directed  to 
assemble  the  deputies  of  the  freeholders ; 2  indeed,  he  was 
specially  instructed  to  "  take  care  that  the  members  of  the 
Assembly  be  elected  only  by  freeholders,  as  being  most 
agreeable  to  the  custom  of  England,  to  which  you  are,  as 
near  as  may  be,  to  conform  yourself."  3  In  spite  of  this  pro 
vision,  and  a  similar  one  in  the  commission  and  instructions 
of  Governor  Bellomont,4  the  elections  do  not  appear  to  have 
been  limited  to  freeholders.  In  1697  writs  of  election  speci 
fied  the  "freemen"  of  the  towns  as  electors;5  and  in 
another  case  described  the  voters  as  "  Freehold1"5  and  other 
\  Inhabitants  of  their  several  Towns,  duly  qualified."  Q  The 
\earliest  law  extending  the  suffrage  to  non- freeholders  which 
has  been  noticed  is  one  of  August,  i6gg.7  This  retained  the 
English  qualification  of  forty  shilling  freehold,  but  linked 
with  it  a  personal  property  alternative: 

"  No  person  Inhabiting  within  this   Province,  other  than   Freehold 
ers  of  the  value  or  income  of  Forty  shillings  per  Annum  or  upwards 
""in  Land,  or  worth  Fifty  Pounds  sterling  at  the  least  in  personal  Estate, 
shall  have  any  vote  in  the  Election  of  Representatives,  or  be  capable 
of  being  Elected  to  serve  in  the  General  Assembly." 

It  was  the  same  qualification  as  that  set  by  the  Massachusetts 
provincial  charter.8 

1  N.  H.  Prov.  Papers,  II,  46.  It  is  interesting  to  notice  that  Massa 
chusetts  permitted  a  certain  degree  of  local  legislation  and  represen 
tation  in  the  assessing  and  collection  of  taxes  (N.  H.  Laws,  I,  482). 

*N.  H.  Prov.  Papers,  II,  58. 

*  Ibid.,  64;   Laws,  I,  510. 

4  Laws,  I,  614,  623. 

5  N.  H.  Prov.  Papers,  II,  237,  263. 

6  Ibid.,  283,  284. 

7  Ibid.,  Ill,  216,  217. 

8  For  election   writ  under   this   law   referring   to   "  Freeholders   and 
other  Inhabitants,"  see  N.  H.  Laws,  I,  637. 


The  Suffrage  in  New  Hampshire.  377 

For  almost  a  generation  there  was  no  change  from  this 
law.  yBut  in  1727  a  new  and  comprehensive  election  law, 
narrowing  the  suffrage  qualifications,  was  passed.  This  act 
provided  for  triennial  meetings  of  the  legislature;  required 
members  of  the  legislature  to  possess  three  hundred  pounds 
value  of  real  estate;  and  declared  that 

"  no  person  shall  have  the  liberty  of  voting  in  the  choice  of  repre 
sentatives,  other  than  such  who  has  a  real  estate  of  the  value  of  fifty~. 
pounds  within  the  town,  parish,  or  precinct  where  such  election  shall 


But  a  landholder  might  vote  in  a  place  even  if  he  were  not 
an  inhabitant,  and,  presumably,  could  vote  in  several  towns 
if  he  held  land  in  each.  After  the  passage  of  this  act,  and  it 
was  not  modified  during  the  provincial  period,  no  landless 
man  could  vote,  and  no  freeholder  unless  he  held  land  to 
the  value  of  fifty  pounds. 

The  facts  of  local  suffrage  in  New  Hampshire  do  not 
differ  much  from  those  of  Massachusetts.  Before  the  first 
union  with  the  latter  colony  there  were  no  general  elections, 
and  the  towns  were  practically  independent.  Under  the  rule 
of  Massachusetts  her  laws  respecting  local  suffrage  were 
enforced  among  the  northern  towns.  Not  until  after  1680, 
therefore,  need  we  note  any  forms  of  local  elections.  Under 
Cutt's  Code,  which  applied  the  term  freemen  to  the  pro 
vincial  elections,  the  same  name  was  given  to  the  voters 
in  the  towns,  but  no  explanation  or  definition  of  the  term 
was  made.2  Later,  under  the  rule  of  Andros,  local  elections 
were  the  only  ones  permitted  throughout  the  Dominion  of 
New  England,  and  these  were  to  be  held  by  the  "  inhabi 
tants"  of  the  several  towns.3  The  same  term  is  applied  to 
town  voters  as  late  as  1694,*  two  years  after  the  assembly 
had  limited  the  local  suffrage  to  freeholders.  It  is  likely 
that  these  variations  in  terminology  did  not  connote  for 

1  Acts   and   Laws   of   His   Majesty's   Province   of   New-Hampshire, 
Portsmouth,  1771,  p.  166. 

2  N.  H.  Prov.   Papers,  I,  403;    Laws,  I,  32,  33.     The  voters  were 
simply  "  ye  freemen  of  each  Towne." 

8  Conn.  Col.  Rcc.,  Ill,  427-429. 

*  N.  H.  Prov.  Papers,  II,  73,  131,  132,  330. 


378     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

different  classes  throughout  the  towns.  Probably  both  free 
men  and  inhabitants  were  nearly  identical  with  the  class  of 
freeholders. 

In  1692  the  assembly  excluded  from  voting  in  town  meet 
ings  all  who  were  not  freeholders,1  and  even  required  the 
land-holding  qualification  in  the  elections  of  ministers,  a 
most  unusual  provision.2  In  1718  and  1719  the  assembly 
adopted  a  large  part  of  the  Massachusetts  legislation  con 
cerning  local  elections.3  By  the  laws  of  these  years  the  local 
suffrage  was  extended  to  "  freeholders  and  other  inhabi 
tants  of  each  town  rateable  at  twenty  pounds  estate,  to  one 
single  rate,  beside  the  poll."  The  Massachusetts  restriction 
upon  strangers  was  adopted  verbatim;  only  after  formal 
admission  by  the  town  or  the  selectmen  might  a  stranger, 
although  otherwise  qualified,  be  admitted  to  a  vote  in  town 
affairs.4  In  a  similar  way  the  voting  in  meetings  of  land 
proprietors  was  modelled  upon  the  laws  of  Massachusetts; 
and  where  the  individual's  interest  in  the  common  lands 
had  been  ascertained  the  votes  were  to  be  proportioned  to 
this  interest ;  where  the  proportion  had  not  been  determined, 
each  proprietor  had  an  equal  voice  with  all  the  others.5 
These  laws  gave  a  basis  for  voting  in  local  elections  which 
was  changed  but  slightly  before  the  Revolution.  The  only 
important  change  \vas  the  substitution,  in  1770,  of  a  tax- 
paying  qualification  in  place  of  the  property-holding  quali 
fication  (£20)  of  the  law  of  1719.  The  new  act  provided 
that  every  male  person  who  paid  thirty  shillings  taxes,  in 
cluding  a  poll-tax  of  eighteen  shillings,  should  be  "  deemed 
a  legal  voter  in  all  affairs  of  the  town  or  parish,  where  he- 
dwells,  except  chusing  Representatives."  6  This  in  turn 
was  reduced  in  1772,  when  a  general  reduction  of  the  taxes 
took  place,  to  the  payment  of  eighteen  shillings  taxes,  in 
cluding  the  poll-tax  of  twrelve  shillings.7 

1  N.  H.  Prov.  Papers,  III,  167. 

'Ibid.,  Ill,  189,   190.     The  latter  act   was   repealed  by  the  queen   in 
1706. 

3  Acts  and  Laivs  of  New  Hampshire  (1771),  71,  123,  136-141. 

4  Taken  from  Massachusetts  act  of  1700.     See  ante. 
''  Massachusetts  act  of  1692.    See  ante. 

6  Acts  and  Lows  of  New  Hampshire  (1771),  Temporary  Laws,  38. 

7  Temporary  Laivs,  58. 


The  Suffrage  in  New  Hampshire.  379 

The  close  relationship  of  New  Hampshire  to  Massachu 
setts  is  seen  not  only  during  the  formal  union  of  the  two 
colonies,  but  also  in  the  frequent  adoption  by  New  Hamp 
shire  of  the  laws  of  her  stronger  neighbor.  There  is,  con 
sequently,  little  of  novelty  to  be  noted  in  New  Hampshire 
legislation.  The  most  striking  cases  appear  in  the  legislation 

x  of  Cutt's  assembly  in  1680,  where  the  exclusion  of  all  but 
Protestants  from  the  suffrage  comes  at  a  remarkably  early 
date  in  colonial  history,  when  usually  it  makes  its  appear 
ance  after  the  Revolution  of  1688.  The  age  requirement  of 

^twenty-four  years,  also  contained  in  this  code,  was  without 
doubt  adopted  from  the  Massachusetts  law;  but  it  had  a 
widely  different  application  from  its  use  in  that  colony.  In 
Massachusetts  it  simply  applied  to  the  small  number  of 
non-church-members  who  might  be  admitted  to  the 


chise;  in  New  Hampshire  it  was  universally  applicable. 
But  these  features  were  of  slight  duration.  Another  diver 
gence  from  Massachusetts  custom  continued  until  Revolu 
tionary  times.  This  was  the  absolute  limitation  of  the 
assembly  suffrage  after  1727  to  freeholders  possessing  fifty 
pounds  value  of  real  estate.  The  province  had  adopted  at 
first  the  qualification  of  the  Massachusetts  charter,  —  forty 
shillings  freehold  or  fifty  pounds  personal  estate;  but  this 
was  narrowed  down  to  the  class  of  freeholders  alone;  and 
with  this  restriction  was  continued  for  almost  fifty  years  of 
colonial  history. 


CHAPTER    XIII. 
THE  SUFFRAGE  IN  CONNECTICUT. 

I.  The  River  Tozuns  to  1662. 

The  settlers  in  the  Connecticut  valley  were  staunch  Puri 
tans  ;  they  had  formed  a  part  of  the  political  and  ecclesiasti 
cal  life  of  Massachusetts ;  and  in  transferring  their  place  of 
abode  to  the  western  valley  they  often  retained  their  church 
organization  and  followed  the  advice  of  their  pastors.1  Yet 
in  spite  of  the  place  which  religion  occupied  in  their  lives, — 
and  we  cannot  say  it  was  less  than  in  the  lives  of  the  Puritans 
they  left  behind  in  Massachusetts, — the  Connecticut  settlers 
did  not  adopt  the  Massachusetts  limitation  of  political  power 
to  church-members.  The  laws  of  the  Bay  formed  the  model 
for  much  of  the  later  legislation  in  Connecticut;  the  land 
system,  the  town  organization,  and  the  general  government 
were  drawn  largely  from  Massachusetts  experience ;  but  the 
feature  of  a  formal  ecclesiastical  restriction  of  the  suffrage 
was  not  carried  westward. 

There  is  not,  however,  any  evidence  that  the  suffrage 
question  was  one  of  the  reasons  for  the  emigration  to  the 
Connecticut.2  Winthrop  does  not  mention  this  motive ;  and 
the  apparent  reasons  for  the  exodus  are  the  desire  for  more 
land,  the  favorable  reports  of  the  Connecticut  country,  the 
opposition  to  the  measures  of  the  ruling  party  in  Massa 
chusetts,  and,  perhaps,  a  covert  antagonism  between  the  two 
pastors,  Cotton  and  Hooker.3  The  latter,  indeed,  in  his 
famous  sermon  in  1638,  said,  "  The  privilege  of  election, 
which  belongs  to  the  people,  therefore  must  not  be  exercised 
according  to  their  humors,  but  according  to  the  blessed 

1  Judge  Chamberlain,  in  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Proc.,  Second  Series,  V,  271. 

2  C  F.  Adams,  in  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Proc.,  Second  Series,  VII,  180  note. 

3  Winthrop,  History  of  New  England,  ed.  by  Savage,  I,  160;    Trum- 
bull,  History  of  Connecticut   (ed.  of  1898),  I,  37-38;    Doyle,  English 
Colonies  in  America,  Puritan  Colonies,  I,   154-155;    Palfrey,  History 
of  New  England,  I,  449-450. 

380 


The  Suffrage  in  Connecticut.  381 

will  and  law  of  God;"1  and  a  scholarly  commentator  says 
Hooker  was  "  forging  out  a  practical  method  of  theocratic 
government."  2  The  essential  point  of  difference  between 
the  two  colonies, — and  the  point  which  gave  the  greater 
practicability  to  the  Connecticut  constitution, — was  the  ab 
sence  of  any  formal  qualifications  upon  the  colony  freeman- 
ship,  and  the  granting  to  the  towns  the  right  to  admit  or 
reject  their  own  inhabitants.  And  since  these  town  inhabi 
tants,  as  we  shall  see,  had  the  right  to  vote  for  deputies  in 
the  general  court,  although  forbidden  to  vote  for  other 
colonial  officers,  the  disfranchised  and  discontented  portion 
of  the  population  would  be  smaller  than  in  Massachusetts. 

For  several  years  the  history  of  the  Connecticut  valley 
is  the  story  of  feeble  frontier  settlements  and  trading  forts 
which,  after  receiving  the  rapid  influx  of  population  from 
Massachusetts,  were  temporarily  under  the  control  of  con 
stables  and  commissioners  appointed  by  that  colony.3  To 
these  appointive  officers  there  were  later  added  certain 
"  committees"  or  representatives  of  the  several  towns.4  The 
records  are  so  meagre  that  we  cannot  discern  the  method  of 
choice  of  these  representatives,  nor  is  any  distinct  political 
qualification  evident,  before  the  adoption  of  the  fundamental 
orders  of  i638-9.5 

It  is,  therefore,  to  those  orders  that  we  must  look  for  the 
earliest  requirements  for  the  suffrage.  The  orders  erected 
a  "  Publike  State  or  Comonwelth"  composed  of  freemen, 
whose  affairs  were  directed  by  a  governor,  six  magistrates, 
and  two  general  courts  every  year  composed  of  these  offi 
cers,  together  with  deputies  sent  from  the  several  towns.6 

1  Palfrey,  I,  537  note. 

2  Weeden,  in  Amer.  Antiquarian  Soc.  Proc.,  Second  Series^IX,  347. 

3  For  analysis  of  the  early  governments,  see  Andrews,  River  Towns 
of  Connecticut,  J.  H.  U.  Studies,  VII,  23-24. 

*  Ibid.,  24 ;  Public  Records  of  the  Colony  of  Connecticut,  1636-1665, 
9-13  (quoted  hereafter  as  Conn.  Col.  Rec.). 

5  One  writer  believes  that  freemanship  of  the  community  antedated 
the  adoption  of  the  constitution  of  1638-9  (Bronsori,  Chapters  on  the 
Early  Government  of  Connecticut,  New  Haven  Hist.  Soc.  Papers,  III, 

303). 

6  See  the  orders  in  Conn.  Col.  Rec.,  1636-1665,  20-25. 


382     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

Within  the  commonwealth  thus  erected  by  the  "  Inhabitants 
and  Residents"  of  the  three  towns,  there  appear  to  be  two 
classes  of  voters,  which  for  many  years  afterwards  were  kept 
distinct. 

The  first  class  is  that  made  up  of  those  wrho  were  members 
of  the  corporation-commonwealth.  The  corporation  was 
erected  in  a  bold,  naive  way,  upon  the  model  of  that  of 
Massachusetts,  but  without  regard  to  the  English  theory 
that  rights  of  incorporation  must  flow  from  some  higher 
authority  than  the  members  of  the  company.  With  such  an 
organization,  even  when  self-instituted,  there  naturally  goes 
the  idea  of  membership,  or,  in  the  language  of  the  time, 
freemanship.  Hence  the  fundamental  orders  recognize  the 
existence  of  freemen,  give  them  a  share  in  the  government, 
and  provide  for  the  admission  of  new  freemen.  Unfor 
tunately  we  do  not  know  the  number  of  freemen  at  the  be 
ginning  of  the  new  government,  nor  the  class  from  which 
they  were  drawn.  The  surmise  of  Bronson  1  that  the  class 
of  freemen  antedated  the  making  of  the  constitution  does 
not  seem  justifiable.  There  were  "  Inhabitants  and  Resi 
dents"  in  the  three  towns,  and  it  is  likely  that  a  more  or 
less  formal  test  was  required  before  new  inhabitants  were 
admitted  into  the  towns,  but  the  writer  has  found  no  evi 
dence  of  the  existence  of  a  community  freemanship  distinct 
from  that  of  the  towns.  So  far  as  the  extant  documents 
show,  some  of  the  inhabitants  and  residents  of  the  towns 
erected  themselves  into  freemen  of  their  home-made  cor 
poration. 

By  the  first  fundamental,  freemen  only  were  permitted  to 
vote  in  the  election  of  the  governor  and  the  magistrates,5"^ 
but  other  qualifications  were  added  in  order  to  limit  the 
meaning  of  the  word   freemen.     Thus,   since  an  oath  of 
fidelity  was  administered  to  all  male  persons  over  sixteen 

1  Op.  dt. 

~  The  wording  of  the  clause  is  as  follows :  "  wel1  choise  shall  be  made 
by  all  that  are  admitted  freemen  and  haue  taken  the  Oath  of  Fidelity, 
and  doe  cohabitte  wthin  this  Jurisdiction,  (hauing  beene  admitted 
Inhabitants  by  the  maior  prt  of  the  Towne  wherein  they  Hue,)  or 
the  mayor  p^te  of  such  as  shall  be  then  prsent"  (Conn.  Col.  Rec.,  1636- 
1665,  21 ). 


The  Suffrage  in  Connecticut.  383 

years  of  age,1  it  was  a  fortiori  required  of  all  freemen  and 
voters.  And  in  this  connection  it  should  be  mentioned  that 
the  mere  taking  of  the  oath  of  fidelity  did  not  make  a  man 
or  a  boy  a  freeman.2  The  taking  of  the  oath  was  a  com 
pulsory  matter  with  all  males  over  sixteen  years  of  age 
dwelling  within  the  jurisdiction,  while  the  freemanship  was 
a  privilege  conferred  by  the  express  vote  of  the  general 
court.  In  addition  to  taking  the  oath  of  fidelity,  the  applicant 
for  freemanship  must  previously  have  been  regularly  ad 
mitted  into  some  town  of  the  jurisdiction  by  the  vote  of 
the  townspeople;  and  at  the  time  of  election  must  dwell 
("  cohabitte")  within  the  commonwealth.  Thus  four  formal 
qualifications  were  imposed  upon  these  electors  of  the  gov 
ernor  and  magistrates :  an  oath  of  fidelity,  actual  residence 
in  the  jurisdiction,  legal  inhabitancy  of  one  of  the  towns, 
and  admission  by  the  general  court  to  the  freemanship. 
The  second  group  of  voters,  the  electors  of  the  town 

1  Conn.  Col.  Rcc.,  1636-1665,  62. 

"  The  Oath  of  a  Freeman. 

"  I,  A.  B.,  being  by  the  P»'uidence  of  God  an  Inhabitant  wthin 
the  Jurisdiction  of  Conectecott,  doe  acknowledge  myselfe  to 
be  subiecte  to  the  Government  thereof,  &  doe  svveare  by  the 
great  &  fearefull  name  of  the  euerliueing  God,  to  be  true  & 
faythfull  vnto  the  same,  &  doe  submitt  boath  my  prson  & 
estate  thereunto,  according  to  all  the  holsome  lawes  &  orders 
that  there  are,  or  hereafter  shall  be  there  made,  &  established 
by  lawfull  authority,  &  that  I  will  nether  plott  nor  practice 
any  euell  [evil]  agt  the  same,  nor  consent  to  any  that  shall  so 
doe,  but  will  tymely  discouer  the  same  to  lawfull  authority 
there  established ;  &  that  I  will,  as  I  am  in  duty  bound, 
mayntayne  the  honner  of  the  same  &  of  the  lawfull  magestratts 
thereof,  prmoting  the  publike  good  of  yt,  whilst  I  shall  soe 
continue  an  Inhabitant  there;  &  whensoeur  I  shall  giue  my 
voate  or  suffrage  touching  any  matter  w<>h  conserns  this 
Comon  welth  being  cauled  thereunto,  will  give  yt  as  in  my 
conscience  I  shall  judge,  may  conduce  to  the  best  good  of 
the  same,  wthout  respect  of  prsons  or  favor  of  any  man.  Soe 
helpe  me  God  in  or  Lord  Jesus  Christe." 

2  A    writer,    usually   careful    in    his   judgments,   has    fallen    into  this 
error  (/.  H.  U.  Stud.,  VII,  85).    See  also  Trumbull,  History  of  Connec 
ticut,  I,  75  (New  London  edition  of  1898). 


384     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

deputies  to  the  general  courts,  was  not  so  limited  as  was  the 
first  group.  The  deputies  were  to  be  chosen,  according  to 
the  seventh  fundamental,  "  by  all  that  are  admitted  In 
habitants  in  the  seurall  Townes  and  haue  taken  the  oath  of 
fidellity,"  but  the  express  proviso  was  added  that  no  one  "  be 
chosen  a  Deputy  for  any  Generall  Courte  wch  is  not  a  Free 
man  of  this  Comonwelth."  Freemanship  was  required  of 
the  representative,  but  not  of  the  elector.  The  latter  must 
simply  be  a  regularly  admitted  inhabitant  of  the  town 
wherein  he  voted.  It  is  well  to  remember,  however,  that 
the  word  inhabitant  had  a  much  narrower  connotation  at 
that  time  than  it  has  to-day.  In  New  England,  and  in  almost 
all  the  colonies,  the  English  legal  meaning  of  the  word  was 
attached  to  it, — that  is,  an  inhabitant  meant  a  householder, 
usually  the  head  of  a  family,  and  under  American  conditions 
it  was  frequently  synonymous  in  practice  with  freeholder.1 
At  this  early  period  the  inhabitant  was  not  merely  a  resident 
of  the  town,  he  was  the  responsible  head  of  a  family,  for 
mally  admitted  by  the  town  into  participation  in  the  town 
political  and  economic  activities.  Upon  these  two  bases  of 
freemanship  and  inhabitancy  the  elections  for  the  colonial 
officers  and  for  the  town  representatives  respectively  rested 
during  the  period  that  the  constitution  of  1639  was  in 
operation. 

We  must  now  note  those  conditions  which  in  law  or  fact 
were  imposed  upon  applicants  for  inhabitancy  in  the  towns 
and  for  the  freemanship  in  the  commonwealth.  As  early 
as  1643  tne  general  court  interpreted  the  clause  of  the  fun 
damentals  giving  the  suffrage  for  deputies  to  admitted  in 
habitants,  by  declaring  that  such  inhabitants  were  those  only 
who  were  "  admitted  by  a  generall  voate  of  the  mayor  prte 
of  the  Towne  that  receaueth  them."  2  Hence  the  actual 
restrictions  upon  inhabitants  were  left  to  the  votes  of  the 
respective  town  meetings.3  That  religious  conformity  was 

1  See  ante,  Chap.  I  and  Chap.  XL 

2  Conn.  Col.  Rec.,  1636^1665,  96. 

8  The  code  of  1650  provided  for  the  disfranchisement  from  town  or 
colony  elections  of  persons  who  were  "  fyned  or  whipped  for  any 
scandalous  offence;"  they  could  be  restored  to  their  privileges  by 
action  of  the  court  (Conn.  Col  Rec.,  1636-1665,  559). 


The  Suffrage  in  Connecticut.  385 

sometimes  one  of  these  restrictions  there  seems  no  doubt,1 
and  particularly  does  this  appear  to  be  the  case  in  view  of 
the  emigration  of  church  congregations  from  Massachusetts 
to  Connecticut.  At  Wethersfield,  where,  in  1640,  there  were 
only  seven  formal  members  of  the  church,2  it  is  likely  the 
other  inhabitants  were  members  of  some  church  in  New 
England,  but  had  not  yet  organized  themselves  into  church 
fellowship  owing  to  the  quarrels  among  the  seven  claiming 
to  be  the  church.3  In  the  early  days,  too,  admission  as  an 
inhabitant  of  a  town  was  contingent  upon  a  man's  ability  to 
enter  into  the  economic  life  of  the  community.  The  in 
habitants  who  planned  the  settlement  of  Wethersfield  re 
quired  their  fellow  "  adventurers"  to  settle  within  the  town 
before  a  certain  date  if  they  did  not  want  to  forfeit  their 
interest  in  the  town  "  devident."  4 

In  Hartford  the  recipient  of  a  grant  of  land  was  required 
to  build  upon  it  within  twelve  months  after  the  grant ;  if  he 
removed  within  four  years  his  lands  were  to  be  forfeited 
to  the  town ;  but  a  sale  was  permitted  either  to  the  town  or 
to  a  person  approved  by  the  town.5  In  Middletown  a  fixed 
term  of  residence  and  the  erection  and  occupation  of  a 
tenantable  house  were  required  to  hold  title  to  town  lots.6 
That  the  towns  exerted  their  privilege  of  refusing  inhabi 
tants  is  shown  by  the  town  records  of  Hartford,7  but  after 
admission  there  does  not  seem  to  be  any  way  of  excluding 
an  inhabitant,  for  the  Hartford  town  meeting  offered  ten 
pounds  to  an  objectionable  man  and  his  wife  if  they  would 
remove  from  the  town.8 

1  New  Haven  Hist.  Soc.  Papers,  III,  315 ;  Andrews,  /.  H.  U.  Stud., 
VII,  83. 

1  Trumbull,  I,  92-93. 

"New  Haven  would  not  have  received  some  twenty-two  of  the 
Wethersfield  men  had  they  not  been  members  of  some  "approved" 
congregation. 

4  Conn.  Col.  Rec.,  1636-1665,  4. 

5  Hartford  Town  Votes,  I,  I   (printed  in  Vol.  VI  of  the  Connecticut 
Historical  Society's  Collections). 

6  Conn.  Col.  Rec.,  1636^1665,  249. 
''Hartford  Town  Votes,  I,  132,  148,  171,  196. 
'Ibid.,  148. 

25 


386     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

Such  restrictions  were  not,  however,  always  enforced. 
Before  1657  many  objectionable  persons  seem  to  have  been 
adopted  by  the  towns  as  inhabitants,1  and  the  presence  of 
these  persons  led  the  general  court  to  make  the  first  property 
qualification  upon  the  suffrage.  The  restriction  was  not 
made  upon  the  freemen,  but  applied  only  to  the  "  admitted 
inhabitants,"  to  whom  was  given  the  right  to  vote  for  town 
deputies.  The  seventh  fundamental,  by  an  order  of  the  court 
of  February  26,  1656-7,  was  interpreted  as  granting  the 
suffrage  only  to  "  householders  that  are  one  &  twenty  yeares 
of  age,  or  haue  bore  office,  or  haue  30!.  estate."  2  This 
limitation  conformed  to  the  English  custom  in  respect  to  age 
and  householding,  but  it  went  beyond  that  in  the  establish 
ment  of  a  legal  property  qualification  for  inhabitancy.  In 
this  form  the  suffrage  for  representatives  was  continued 
until  1662,  when  the  terms  of  the  new  charter  restricted  such 
elections  to  the  freemen  alone.3 

It  has  been  seen  that  the  fundamentals  gave  to  the  general 
court  the  power  of  admission  of  freemen.  That  body  some 
times  exercised  the  power  directly  and  sometimes  delegated 
it  to  specific  persons  or  officers.  As  early  as  October,  1639, 
Governor  Haynes  and  a  Mr.  Wells  were^  appointed  by  the 
court  to  confer  with  the  planters  at  Pequonnocke  (Strat 
ford),  and  were  empowered  to  administer  the  oath  of  fidelity 
to  them  and  to  "  make  such  free  as  they  see  fitt."  4  A  similar 
authorization  was  made  shortly 'afterwards.5  In  1646 
a  general  power  of  admitting  freemen  was  delegated  to  any 
three  magistrates,  who  were  required  to  demand  a  certificate 
of  the  good  character  of  the  applicant;  but  their  power 
was  limited  to  the  time  intervening  before  the  next  meeting 

1  New  Haven  Hist.  Soc.  Papers,  III,  301. 

2  Conn.   Col.  Rcc.,   1636-1665,  293.     By  the  code  of   1650  the  court 
had  declared  twenty-one  years  to  be  the  legal  age  for  giving  of  votes 
or  performing  legal  acts  (Rec.  1636-1665,  510). 

3  In    1660  the   towns   were    forbidden   to    admit   as    inhabitants   any 
persons  but  "  such  as  are  knowne  to  be  of  an  honest  conversation" 
(Conn.  Col.  Rec.,  1636-1665,  351). 

*Conn.  Col.  Rcc.,  1636-1665,  36. 
*Ibid.,  47- 


The  Suffrage  in  Connecticut.  387 

of  the  general  court.1  The  records  do  not  show  how  many 
were  admitted  as  freemen  in  this  manner,  but  their  number 
may  have  been  considerable,  for  it  does  not  seem  probable 
that  the  twenty-three  names  of  admitted  freemen  given  in 
the  records  represent  all  the  acceptable  persons  who  came 
into  Connecticut  from  1639  to  1649.  The  order  of  the  gen 
eral  court  in  1657  requiring  the  town  deputies  to  prepare  a 
list  of  the  names  of  freemen  in  their  respective  towns  seems 
to  point  to  the  conclusion  that  the  colony  records  are  not 
complete  on  the  subject.2 

Perhaps  it  was  some  irregularity  in  the  use  of  the  dele 
gated  power  of  admitting  freemen  which  led  the  court  in 
1657  to  enact  that  "those  and  only  those"  who  were  ap 
proved  by  the  general  court  should  be  made  freemen. 
Applicants  were  further  required  to  have  "  an  affirmatiue 
certificate  vnder  the  hands  of  all  or  the  major  part  of  the 
deputies  in  their  seuerall  townes,  of  their  peaceable  and 
honest  conuersation."  3  It  seems  impossible  to  determine 
whether  or  not  the  admission  of  freemen  by  the  magistrates 
continued  up  to  the  time  of  this  act.  The  fact  that  140 
freemen  were  admitted  within  the  fifteen  months  follow 
ing  the  passage  of  the  act  indicates  either  a  large  increase 
in  the  class  of  persons  qualified  for  freemanship,  or  a  sudden 
desire  for  that  privilege,  or  that  the  general  court  was  ex 
ercising  a  function  which  previously  had  been  performed 
by  the  magistrates.4  The  writer  is  inclined  to  accept  the  lat 
ter  view. 

In  1657  the  court  had  imposed  a  property  qualification 
upon  voting  inhabitants  in  the  towns.  Two  years  later,  by 
an  order  of  March  9,  1658-9,  a  similar  restriction  was 
placed  upon  the  freemanship.  An  order  of  that  date 
provided 

1  Conn,  Col.  Rec.}  1636-1665,  139.  The  same  order  authorizes  the 
administering  of  the  oath  of  fidelity  to  all  male  persons  over  sixteen, 
years  of  age. 

1  Conn.  Col.  Rec.,  1636-1665,  290.  *  Ibid. 

4  This  number  is  more  than  half  the  entire  number  of  recorded 
admissions  between  1639  zmd  1662.  The  greatest  number  admitted  at 
any  previous  session  of  the  court  was  in  May,  1654,  when  thirty-six 
freemen  were  accepted  (Rec.,  256). 


388     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

"  That  for  the  future  none  shalbe  prsented  to  be  made  free 
men  in  this  Jurisdiction,  or  haue  the  priuilidge  of  freedome 
conferd  vpon  them,  vntil  they  haue  fulfild  the  age  of  twenty 
one  years  and  haue  30!.  of  proper  personal  estate,  or  haue 
borne  office  in  the  Comon  wealth;  such  persons  quallified  as 
before,  and  being  men  of  an  honest  and  peaceable  conver 
sation,  shalbe  prsented  in  an  ordrly  way  at  the  General  Court 
in  October,  yearly,  to  prvent  tumult  and  trouble  at  the  Court 
of  Election."  * 

The  reasons  for  the  passage  of  this  act  are  not  given  in  the 
contemporary  documents.  Apparently  it  was  called  forth  by 
the  rapid  growth  of  the  freeman  class  which  had  taken  place 
in  the  preceding  two  years.  The  natural  feeling  may  also 
have  arisen  that  the  freemen  voters  should  not  possess  a 
lower  qualification  than  that  which  had  lately  been  imposed 
upon  those  voting  by  right  of  inhabitancy. 

The  property  qualification  thus  established  was  not  identi 
cal  with  that  imposed  upon  town  inhabitants.  In  the  latter 
case  the  requirement  was  thirty  pounds  "estate;"  while  in 
the  new  act  it  was  the  same  amount  of  "  proper  personal 
estate."  This  has  been  interpreted  by  students  of  the  period 
as  meaning  a  real  estate  qualification  for  town  inhabitants, 
and  a  personal  property  requirement  for  the  freemanship.2 
Mr.  Bronson  3  has  pointed  out  that  thirty  pounds  of  personal 
property  was  a  comparatively  large  sum  for  that  time,  when 
the  average  property  of  a  taxable  person  was  sixty  pounds, 
made  up  largely  of  real  estate.  The  new  qualification  must, 
indeed,  have  been  a  very  high  one,  for  it  practically  pro 
hibited  further  accessions  to  the  freemanship.  Within  the 
next  two  and  a  half  years,  or  until  the  charter  went  into 
operation  in  October,  1662,  there  are  only  three  recorded 
admissions  of  freemen.  The  one  hundred  and  forty  ad 
missions  in  the  fifteen  months  preceding  the  passage  of  this 
act,  and  the  three  freemen  admitted  in  the  two  and  a  half 
years  following,  give  us  a  very  definite  idea  of  the  success 
of  the  new  restrictive  legislation.  If  the  ideal  of  the  general 

1  Conn.  Col.  Rec.,  1636-1665,  331. 

2  Bronson,  New  Haven  Hist.  Soc.  Papers,  III,  315;    Andrews,  7.  H. 
U.  Stud.,  VII,  87. 

3  Op.  cit. 


The  Suffrage  in  Connecticut.  389 

court  was  the  exclusion  of  all  other  persons  from  the  free- 
manship,  that  ideal  was  attained.  In  justice  to  the  framers 
of  the  law,  however,  it  may  be  believed  that  the  operation  of 
the  act  was  more  exclusive  than  they  desired.  At  least  we 
must  remember  that  one  of  the  first  acts  under  the  new 
charter  was  the  passage  of  a  law  putting  the  freemanship 
on  a  far  less  aristocratic  basis.1 

While  there  was  no  formal  religious  qualification  for 
•voters  in  Connecticut,  yet,  on  the  other  hand,  there  was  no 
such  separation  of  church  and  state  as  was  established  by 
Williams  in  Rhode  Island.  Hooker,  indeed,  had  said  that 
the  privilege  of  election,  although  given  by  God  to  the 
people,  "  must  not  be  exercised  according  to  their  humors, 
but  according  to  the  blessed  will  and  law  of  God."  2  "  To 
the  first  settlers  in  Connecticut,"  says  a  late  writer,  "  civil 
and  ecclesiastical  affairs  were  convertible  terms.  The  town 
ship  and  the  church  were  coterminous :  the  town,  by  which 
term,  as  distinguished  from  the  territorial  township,  was 
meant  the  body  of  voters  within  the  township,  settled  civil 
and  ecclesiastical  affairs  indifferently  in  the  same  town  meet 
ing  ;  and  as  about  all  the  voters  were  at  first  church-members 
and  agreed  closely  in  creed  and  methods,  the  dual  system 
produced  little  friction  for  a  time."  3  Palfrey  thought  it 
reasonable  to  believe  "  that  church-membership — or,  to 
speak  more  precisely,  a  religious  character  in  the  candidate, 
such  as  naturally  led  to  church-membership,  and  was  com 
monly  found  in  union  with  it — was  also  in  Plymouth  and 
Connecticut  much  regarded  by  the  electors  as  a  qualifica 
tion  of  candidates  for  citizenship."  4  It  is  almost  the  uni 
versal  opinion  of  Connecticut  historians  that  the  actual  ad 
ministration  of  the  freeman  principle  in  that  colony  led  at 
first  to  virtually  the  same  restrictions  upon  the  suffrage  as 
existed  in  New  Haven  or  Massachusetts.5 

1  See  post,  408. 

2  Palfrey,  New  England,  I,  537. 

3  Johnston,  Connecticut,  220. 

4  Palfrey,  New  England,  II,  8. 

5  A  further  proof  of  this  opinion  is  to  be  seen  in  the  proposition  of 
Connecticut  made  during  the  negotiations  with  New  Haven  that  candi 
dates   for   freemanship  be   "  men  of  a   religious   carriage,   visibly   soe" 
(New  Haven  Col.  Rec.,  1653-1665,  495). 


390     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

The  number  of  original  freemen  in  1639  *s  n°t  known,  but 
their  number  was  increased  very  slowly.  Out  of  a  total  in 
crease  in  population  between  1639  and  J662  of  about  3000 
persons,  only  229  are  recorded  as  having  been  admitted  to 
the  freemanship.1  That  is,  for  twenty-three  years  only  one 
person  in  thirteen  of  the  new  population  was  made  a  free 
man  of  the  corporation.  In  the  first  ten  years  there  are  only 
twenty-three  recorded  admissions;  and  of  the  remaining 
ones,  more  than  half  were  admitted  by  the  general  court, 
between  1657  and  1659.  Yet  it  is  probable  that,  owing  to 
the  more  liberal  town  suffrage,  and  the  right  of  town  in 
habitants  to  vote  for  the  town  representatives  in  the  general 
court,  the  limitations  upon  the  freemanship  were  not  felt 
so  heavily  as  in  Massachusetts.  It  is  plain,  too,  that  Con 
necticut  was  looked  upon  as  more  liberal  than  New  Haven. 
Evidently,  Hooker's  plan  of  theocratic  government  was 
more  practicable  than  those  of  Cotton  and  Davenport. 

II.    The  Suffrage  in  New  Haven  before  the  Union  with 

Connecticut. 

The  well-known  peculiarity  of  the  New  Haven  colony  is 
the  limitation  of  political  power  to  those  who  were  church- 
members.  In  New  Haven,  even  more  fully  than  in  Massa 
chusetts,  did  the  church-members  control  the  entire  life  of 
the  community.  In  Massachusetts  although  participation 
in  the  colonial  elections  was  granted  only  to  freemen,  yet 
non-freemen  were  sometimes  given  a  part  in  the  choice  of 
town  or  militia  officers ;  but  in  New  Haven  the  attempt  was 
made  to  limit  the  suffrage  under  any  or  all  conditions — with 
the  single  exception  of  proprietary  claims  to  lands — to  those 
who  were  members  of  some  approved  church.  In  no  other 
settlement  on  the  continent  was  the  theoretical  ideal  of  a 
community  of  church-members  so  nearly  attained ;  nowhere 
else  were  the  lines  between  political  power  and  disfranchise- 
ment  so  clearly  and  sharply  drawn.  Yet  it  must  be  said  that 
New  Haven  was  content  with  her  religious  qualification; 

1  Bronson,  op.  cit.,  313.  There  may  have  been  others  admitted  in  the 
irregular  way  by  officers  of  the  company,  but  no  record  has  been  found 
of  such  persons. 


The  Suffrage  in  Connecticut.  391 

this  was  the  supreme  test  of  good  citizenship,  and  it  was  the 
only  one.  She  did  not  link  to  it  any  freehold  or  personal 
property  prerequisite ;  all  were  invited  "  to  come  in  by  the 
doore"  of  the  church ; 1  every  one  was  discouraged  from 
"  disorderly  or  uncomely  attempts  to  climbe  up  another 
way." 

The  New  Haven  towns,  like  many  other  examples  in 
America,  appear  to  have  sprung  from  the  voluntary  and 
spontaneous  association  of  a  group  of  Englishmen.  The 
first  compact  may  have  been  of  a  business  nature  when  the 
friends  contributed  according  to  their  ability  towards  the 
common  expenses ;  or  it  may  have  been  of  a  religious  char 
acter,  the  brotherhood  bond  of  members  of  a  common 
church.  Such  voluntary  economic  or  ecclesiastical  associa 
tions  before  actual  settlement  are  to  be  seen  in  the  cases 
of  New  Haven  proper,2  in  Milford,3  Guilford,4  and  South- 
old.5  But  the  purely  personal  compact  of  business  co 
partners,  or  the  friendly  tie  of  common  church-membership 
must  be  replaced  either  before  6  or  soon  after  settlement  by 
a  more  formal  organization  both  of  church  and  state.  The 
association  must  be  changed  from  a  voluntary  personal  one 
to  a  more  definite  political  organization  whose  jurisdiction  in 
civil  and  religious  affairs  would  be  co-extensive  with  the 
territory  of  the  town.7  This  transition  was  accomplished 
first  in  the  town  of  New  Haven  according  to  a  method  later 
adopted  in  the  neighboring  towns. 

The  meeting  of  the  New  Haven  planters  on  June  4,  1639, 
which  tradition  says  was  held  in  Mr.  Newman's  barn,  acting 
under  the  advice  of  Minister  Davenport,  took  the  first  steps 
for  the  "  settling  ciuill  Gouernmt  according  to  God." 8 

1  New  Haven  Colonial  Records,  1653-1665,  403-404. 

'  New  Haven  Hist.  Soc.  Papers,  I,  12. 

1  Atwater,  History  of  New  Haven  Colony,  155. 

4  Steiner,  History  of  Guilford  and  Madison,  Conn.,  29 ;  Atwater, 
New  Haven,  161. 

8  Ibid.,  171-173- 

8  See  grant  of  "civil  power  for  the  administration  of  justice  and  the 
preservation  of  peace"  in  Guilford ;  Steiner,  Guilford,  29. 

7  Compare  C.  F.  Adams,  The  Genesis  of  Massachusetts  Towns,  Mass. 
Hist.  Soc.  Proc.,  Second  Series,  VII,  179-187. 

8  New  Haven  Col.  Rec.,  1638-1649,  11  ff. 


392     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

Here  the  well-known  queries  of  Davenport  were  unani 
mously  answered  in  the  affirmative  by  the  body  of  planters. 
It  was  agreed  that  "  the  Scripturs  doe  holde  forth  a  perfect 
rule  for  the  direction  and  gouernm*  of  all  men  in  all 
duet[ies]  wch  they  are  to  performe  to  God  and  men  as  well 
in  the  gourmt  of  famylyes  and  comonwealths  as  in  matters 
of  the  chur[ch]."  So  likewise  all  accepted  the  earlier 
covenant  they  had  made  that  the  rules  of  scripture  should 
be  observed  in  all  "  publique  offices  wch  concerne  ciuill 
order,  as  choyce  of  magistrates  and  officers,  makeing  and  re 
pealing  of  lawes,  devideing  allottmts  of  inheritance  and  all 
things  of  a  like  nature."  Upon  the  third  query  all  expressed 
themselves  as  desirous  of  admission  to  church-fellowship  as 
soon  as  they  were  fitted  therefor  by  God ;  and  the  fourth  in 
quiry  that  such  a  civil  order  should  be  established  as  would 
secure  the  purity  and  peace  of  the  religious  ordinances  was 
with  equal  unanimity  adopted. 

In  the  fifth  question  there  lay  the  whole  theory  of  New 
Haven  theocratic  government:  "  Whether  Free  Burgesses 
shalbe  chosen  out  of  chur.  members?"  The  question  was 
carried  unanimously ;  but  one  man,  perhaps  Samuel  Eaton,1 
after  the  vote  was  taken,  expressed  a  partial  dissent  from 
the  decision.  The  objections  were  answered  by  Davenport 
and  Theophilus  Eaton,  whose  arguments  called  forth  ex 
pressions  of  approval  from  some  who  owned  they  had  not 
previously  been  quite  fully  satisfied  of  the  justice  of  the 
restriction.  And  then  by  a  second  unanimous  vote,  this 
time  undoubtedly  with  more  spirit, 

"  Mr.  Rob*  Newman  was  desired  to  write  itt  as  an  order 
wherevnto  euery  one  thatt  hereafter  should  be  admitted  here 
as  planters  should  submitt  and  testefie  the  same  by  subscribing 
their  names  to  the  order,  namely,  that  church  members  onely 
shall  be  free  burgesses,  and  thatt  they  onely  shall  chuse  magis 
trates  &  officers  among  themselues  to  haue  the  power  of  trans 
acting  all  the  publique  ciuill  affayres  of  this  Plantation,  of 
makeing  and  repealing  lawes,  devideing  of  inheritances,  de- 
cideing  of  differences  thatt  may  arise  and  doeing  all  things  or 
businesses  of  like  nature."  2 

1  Atwater,  New  Haven,  99. 

2  New  Haven  Col.  Rec.,  1638-1649,  15. 


The  Suffrage  in  Connecticut.  393 

This  restriction  of  freemanship  to  church-members  must 
be  read  in  the  light  of  the  unanimous  expression  of  the 
desire  to  enter  church  fellowship.  All  the  adult  planters 
were  willing  to  enter  the  church  when  its  organization 
should  be  completed,  and  in  the  light  of  this  feeling  the 
church-membership  provision  was  not  a  limitation  upon  any 
of  the  men  gathered  in  Mr.  Newman's  barn.  Should  all 
carry  out  their  desire  to  enter  the  church,  the  suffrage  would 
be  co-extensive  with  the  free  planters.  It  would  be,  most 
likely,  with  respect  to  new-comers,  that  the  rule  would  work 
hardship.  The  original  settlers  possessed  a  solidarity  of  feel 
ing  which  had  been  the  real  reason  for  their  previous  asso 
ciation;  but  would  new  arrivals  or  a  rising  generation  pay 
such  regard  to  the  religious  tenets  which  persecution  had 
brought  into  the  foreground  of  the  Puritan's  thinking?  The 
history  of  the  New  Haven  colony  shows  how  difficult  it  was, 
in  spite  of  great  care  in  the  admission  of  inhabitants,  to 
maintain  the  homogeneity  of  sentiment  so  marked  among  the 
first  settlers. 

After  the  consideration  of  the  general  foundations  of 
church  and  state,  the  planters  proceeded  to  select  from  their 
number  certain  persons  to  carry  on  the  work  of  organization. 
The  general  meeting  appointed  twelve  men  for  the  "  foun 
dation  work;"  these  selected  seven  "pillars"  to  organize 
a  church.  After  they  had  completed  this,  and  admitted 
others  as  church-members,  the  seven  held  a  civil  court  at 
which  those  who  were  members  of  the  new  church  or  of 
some  "  approved"  church  were  privileged  to  vote  for  civil 
officers.1  At  about  the  same  time  a  "  freeman's  charge"  or 
declaration  of  obedience  to  the  government  was  composed.2 

1  New  Haven   Col.  Rec.,   1638-1649,    16-21 ;     Atwater,   New  Haven, 
101-102. 

2  New  Haven  Col.  Rec.,  1638-1649,  19. 

"  You  shall  neither  plott,  practise  nor  consent  to  any  evill 
or  hurt  against  this  Jurisdiction,  or  any  pte  of  it,  or  against 
the  civill  gouernment  here  established.  And  if  you  shall  know 
any  pson  or  psons  wch  intend,  plott,  or  conspire  any  thing 
wch  tends  to  the  hurt  or  prejudice  of  the  same,  you  shall 
timely  discouer  the  same  to  lawfull  authority  here  established 
and  yow  shall  assist  and  bee  helpfull  in  all  the  affaires  of  the 


394     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

The  method  of  initiating  religious  and  civil  government  in 
Milford,  Guilford,  and  perhaps  in  Southold,  appears  similar 
to  that  adopted  in  New  Haven.  Pillars  of  the  church  were 
chosen  for  beginning  the  "foundation  work;"  and  after 
they  had  started  the  organization,  others  were  admitted  as 
church-members  and  as  freemen  of  the  respective  towns.1 
At  Guilford,  however,  an  additional  restriction  was  placed 
upon  freemen.  The  agreement  of  the  settlers  of  that  town 
included  the  following  clause : 

"  We  do  now  therefore,  all  and  every  of  us  agree,  order 
and  conclude  that  only  such  planters,  as  are  also  members  of 
the  church  here,  shall  bee,  and  bee  called  freemen,  and  that 
such  freemen  only  shall  have  power  to  elect  magistrates,  Depu 
ties  and  all  other  officers  of  public  trust  or  authority  in 
matters  of  importance,  concerning  either  the  civill  officers  or 
government  here,  from  amongst  themselves  and  not  else 
where."  " 

Thus  not  church-membership  in  some  "  approved"  church  of 
New  England,  but,  rather,  membership  of  the  local  church 
was  required  in  the  Guilford  settlement.  They  went  one 
degree  farther  than  New  Haven.  On  the  other  hand,  Mil- 
ford  appears  to  have  been  more  lax  in  the  admission  of  free 
men  than  were  her  neighbors.  Before  her  union  with  New 
Haven  and  Guilford,  Milford  admitted  six  non-church-mem 
bers  as  freemen.  But  the  action  was  esteemed  so  objection 
able  that  it  was  thought  worthy  of  a  special  place  in  the 

Jurisdiction,  and  by  all  meanes  shall  promove  the  publique 
wellfare  of  the  same,  according  to  yor  place,  ability,  and  opptu- 
nity,  yow  shall  give  due  honnor  to  the  lawful  magistrats,  and 
shall  be  obedient  and  subject  to  all  the  wholesome  lawes  and 
orderes,  allready  made,  or  wch  shall  be  hereafter  made,  by 
lawfull  authority  afforesaid.  And  that  both  in  yor  pson  and 
estate ;  and  when  yow  shall  be  duely  called  to  give  yor  vote  or 
suffrage  in  any  election,  or  touching  any  other  matter,  wch 
concerneth  this  common  wealth,  yow  shall  give  it  as  in  yor 
conscience  yow  shall  judg  may  conduce  to  the  best  good  of  the 
same." 

1  At  water,  New  Haven,  Chap.  IX. 

2  Steiner,  Guilford,  35-36. 


The  Suffrage  in  Connecticut.  395 

agreements  leading  up  to  the  union  of  1643.  Milford  would 
not  disfranchise  her  irregular  freemen,  but  they  were  to  be 
permitted  to  vote  only  for  town  officers  and  deputies,  they 
and  all  non-church-members  were  excluded  from  holding 
office,  and  for  the  future  "  none  shall  be  admitted  freemen 
or  free  burgesses  hereafter  att  Milforde,  butt  church  mem 
bers  according  to  the  practice  of  Newhaven."  l 

No  change  was  made  in  the  freeman  principle  nor  in  the 
qualifications  of  applicants  by  the  fundamentals  of  1643, 
which  united  the  previously  separate  settlements  of  New 
Haven,  Milford,  and  Guilford,  except  that  non-freemen  were 
specially  guaranteed  rights  "  to  their  inheritance  &  to 
comerce,  according  to  such  grants,  orders  and  lawes  as  shall 
be  made  concerning  the  same."  2  It  was  the  aim  of  the 
New  Haven  government  to  keep  the  entire  political  control 
in  the  hands  of  the  freemen.  In  Connecticut  and  Massa 
chusetts  non-freemen  could  vote  in  some  local  elections,  but 
not  in  those  for  the  entire  colony.  But  no  such  distinction 
was  made  in  New  Haven;  the  freemen  church-members 
alone  could  elect  the  colony  officers,  direct  the  affairs,  and 
choose  the  officers  of  the  towns,*  and  they  only  were  privi 
leged  to  select  the  militia  officers,4  a  right  almost  universally 
granted  to  all  soldiers.5  The  newly  organized  government 
also  required  all  persons  admitted  as  inhabitants  to  take  an 
oath  of  fidelity  to  the  jurisdiction.6 

Such  was  the  simple  basis  of  political  organization  in  the 
"  republic  of  New  Haven."  All  adult  male  inhabitants,  who 
were  members  of  some  approved  church  in  New  England, 
were  qualified  electors  of  the  commonwealth.  But  in  the 

1  New  Haven  Col.  Rec.,  1638-1649,  no;  Atwater,  New  Haven,  158. 
It  is  interesting  to  note  that  of  the  fifty-four  original  planters  of 
Milford,  forty-four  were  at  once  admitted  to  church  membership,  a 
larger  proportion  of  actual  members  than  is  seen  among  the  early 
settlers  of  New  Haven  (Atwater,  157). 

*  New  Haven  Col.  Rec..  1638-1640,  112. 
3  Ibid.,  1653-1665,  604. 

*  Ibid.,  361.  602. 

5  See  subject  of  militia  elections  in  other  colonies. 

6  New   Haven   Col   Rec.,  1638-1649,  130;    1653-1665,  57,  98;    Lever- 
more,  The  Republic  of  New  Haven.  101. 


396     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

simplicity  of  the  restriction  there  lay  a  danger  which  the 
state  soon  discovered.  The  church  was  the  door  to  political 
power;  but  who  should  guard  the  entrance?  "  Who  was  to 
keep  the  keepers  ?"  x  Massachusetts  had  recognized  the 
danger  very  soon  after  she  laid  the  religious  restriction  upon 
freemen,  and  in  1635-6  had  met  the  difficulty  by  forbidding 
the  organization  of  any  church  without  the  consent  of  the 
magistrates  of  the  colony  and  the  elders  of  the  approved 
churches.2  The  New  Haven  legal  code  of  1656  adopted  the 
spirit  of  the  earlier  provision  of  Massachusetts,  although 
changing  somewhat  the  wording  of  the  law.  Full  liberty 
was  given  to  the  "  people  of  God  within  this  jurisdiction, 
who  are  not  in  a  church  way,  being  orthodox  in  judgment, 
and  not  scandalous  in  life,"  3  to  gather  themselves  into  a 
church  organization  according  to  the  "  rules  of  Christ,  re 
vealed  in  his  Word."  But  no  such  company  of  persons  join 
ing  in  "  any  pretended  way  of  church  fellowship"  should  be 
recognized  by  the  general  court  unless  they  had  the  approval 
of  the  magistrates  and  the  elders  of  the  churches. 

"  Nor  shall  any  person,  being  a  member  of  any  church  which 
shall  be  gathered  without  such  notice  given  and  approbation 
had,  or  who  is  not  a  member  of  some  church  in  New  England 
approved  by  the  magistrates  and  churches  of  this  colony,  be 
admitted  to  the  freedom  of  this  jurisdiction." 

In  this  way  the  state  protected  itself  against  the  deterioration 
of  the  political  constituency  by  the  acceptance  of  the  mem 
bers  of  irregular  churches.  The  religious  qualification  for 
the  suffrage  implied  a  right  upon  the  part  of  the  political 
authorities  to  preserve  the  purity  of  the  ecclesiastical  spring 
whence  flowed  the  freeman  class.  As  in  the  colonies  where 
freeholding  was  a  prerequisite  to  political  rights  the  legis 
latures  were  compelled  "to  define  the  term  freehold,  so  in 
Massachusetts  and  Itfew  Haven  the  term  church-member 
must  be  given  a  definite  connotation. 

Another  feature  of  the  fundamentals  of  the  union  of  1643 

1  Palfrey,  New  England,  I,  436. 

2  Mass.  Col.  Rec.,  I,  171. 

8  New  Haven  Col.  Rec.,  1653-1665,  588. 


The  Suffrage  in  Connecticut.  397 

is  the  adoption  of  the  proxy  system.  By  the  third  funda 
mental  it  was  provided  that 

"  for  the  ease  of  those  free  burgesses  especially  in  the  more 
remote  plantations,  they  may  by  proxi  vote  in  these  elections, 
though  absent,  their  votes  being  sealed  vp  in  the  prsence  of 
the  free  burgesses  themselves,  thatt  their  severall  libertyes 
may  be  preserved,  and  their  votes  directed  according  to  their 
owne  particular  light."  * 

The  constitution  of  1643  did  not  state  the  manner  in  which 
these  proxy  votes,  or  ballots,  should  be  cast,  but  the  code  of 
1656  permitted  those  freemen  who  could  not  conveniently 
attend  the  election  to  "  send  their  Votes,  either  written,  or 
in  some  other  way  sealed  up."  2  The  "  other  way"  is  illus 
trated  by  the  corn-and-bean  provision  of  the  same  code; 
according  to  which  the  freeman  might  "  send  his  Vote,  as 
he  finds  cause,  either  in  the  affirmative,  by  putting  in  an 
Indian  Corne,  or  in  the  Negative,  by  putting  in  a  Beane,  or 
in  such  other  manner,  as  the  Generall  Court  shall  judge 
more  convenient." 

Despite,  however,  the  early  strictness  with  which  the  right 
of  election  was  limited  to  the  freemen,  there  arose  in  prac 
tice  certain  exceptions  to  the  principle,  and  popular  clamor 
demanded  still  greater  compromises.  In  the  militia  elections 
it  was  not  always  found  possible  to  obtain  efficient  or  willing 
officers  among  the  freemen,  and  although  the  electors  appear 
to  have  been  freemen,  yet  on  several  occasions  the  officers 
chosen  were  non-freemen.3  In  the  town-meetings,  Guil- 
ford,  as  early  as  1645-6  permitted  all  planters  to  vote  upon 
a  question  of  the  division  of  the  town  lands.4  It  must  be 
remembered  that  non-freemen  often  were  landowners  and 

1  New  Haven  Col.  Rec.,  1638-1649,  113. 

*/&«/.,  1653-1665,  567. 

3  New  Haven  Col  Rec.,  1653-1665;'  97,  145,  407.  In  the  last  case  the 
general  court  permitted  Southold  to  choose  a  non-freeman  drummer 
because  of  their  "  present  necessity  &  his  fitnes." 

*  Steiner,  Guilford,  167.  The  attendance  of  non-freemen  at  the  town- 
meetings  in  Guilford  was  compulsory;  the  fines  upon  "planters"  being 
one-half  those  imposed  upon  freemen  for  lateness  or  absence  (ibid., 
100). 


398     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

proprietors  in  common  lands,  upon  which  matters  they  would 
have  an  ethical  right  to  be  heard  when  their  property  in 
terests  were  at  stake.  But  the  boundary  line  between  purely 
personal  matters  and  political  concerns  was  not  easily  deter 
mined,  and  some  towns  admitted  non-freemen  "  to  vote  in 
things  of  weightie  trust  and  concernment."  The  latter  con 
dition  called  forth  an  order  from  the  general  court  requiring 
the  fundamental  orders  to  "  be  exactly  attended  and  none 
suffered  to  vote  but  free-men."  But  the  court  itself  was 
compelled  in  justice  to  add,  "  unless  it  be  in  some  pticuler 
cases  wherein  the  proprieties  of  the  planters  in  generall  are 
concerned  and  ought  not  to  be  disposed  of  wthout  their 
consent."1 

As  in  local  matters  there  was  thus  a  slight  lifting  of  the 
bars  to  the  suffrage,  so  the  restricted  nature  of  the  freeman- 
ship  in  general  elections  soon  led  to  protests  by  the  disfran 
chised  against  its  narrowness.  While  restrictions  were  im 
posed  upon  the  admission  of  inhabitants,2  yet  many  who  were 
not  church-members  acquired  inhabitancy  and  lands  in  the 
towns.3  It  has  not  been  possible  to  arrive  at  an  estimate 
of  the  actual  number  or  proportion  of  this  disfranchised 
class,  but  it  must  have  constituted  a  group  of  inhabitants 
almost,  if  not  quite,  as  large  as  that  of  the  freemen.  As 
late  as  1669,  when  the  more  lenient  Connecticut  laws  were  in 
force,  the  freemen  of  the  town  of  New  Haven  did  not  in 
clude  more  than  half  the  whole  number  of  taxable  males.4 
At  an  earlier  time  the  proportion  of  freemen  may  have  been 
even  less  than  this.5  A  disfranchised  class  of  this  size  was 
not  likely  to  remain  silent  throughout  the  history  of  the 
colony. 

During  the  war  between  the  English  Commonwealth  and 
the  Dutch  the  members  of  the  New  England  federation  dis 
cussed  the  expediency  of  an  attack  upon  New  Amsterdam. 
Through  the  opposition  of  Massachusetts  the  plan  was  not 

*New  Haven  Col.  Rec.,  1653-1665,  177. 

*  Ibid.,  1638-1649,  24,  40,  130;    1653-1665,  610. 
'Levermore,  Republic  of  New  Haven,  101-104. 

4  See  post;    and  compare  Conn.  Col.  Rec.,  1665-1677,  290,  with  ibid., 
518-526. 

*  See  Doyle,  The  Puritan  Colonies,  I,  198-199. 


The  Suffrage  in  Connecticut.  399 

carried  out,  but  the  agitation  of  the  subject  led  to  great 
popular  movements  in  Connecticut  and  New  Haven,  in  the 
course  of  which  two  towns,  Fairfield  in  Connecticut  and 
Stamford  in  New  Haven,  even  began  to  collect  a  force  to 
attack  the  Dutch  on  their  own  account.  The  refusal  of  the 
authorities  of  both  Connecticut  and  New  Haven  to  sanc 
tion  the  proposed  attack  increased  popular  excitement  in 
the  towns,  and  led  some  of  the  inhabitants  to  attack  the 
existing  colonial  governments ;  they  declared  themselves  in 
favor  of  the  "  State  of  England,"  and  were  determined  "  to 
stand  for  their  liberties,  that  they  may  all  have  their 
votes."  1 

Robert  Bassett,  of  Stamford,  appears  to  have  been  the 
most  active  man  in  the  New  Haven  jurisdiction  in  favoring 
the  popular  movement.  He  wras  arrested,  charged  with  being 
a  "  ringleader  in  these  wayes  of  disturbance,"  and  brought 
before  the  court  at  New  Haven.  The  court  believed  he  had 
wanted  to  "  overthrow  churches  and  comonwealthes ;"  and 
recorded  how  he  had  demanded,  in  a  Stamford  town-meet 
ing,  after  being  told  that  the  meeting  was  held  under  Eng 
lish  authority,  "  then  let  vs  haue  Englands  lawes,  for  Eng 
land  doe  not  prohibbitt  vs  from  our  votes  and  liberties,  and 
here  wee  are,  and  wee  are  cut  of  from  all  appeales  to  Eng 
land."  2  He  had  also  pointed  to  the  more  favorable  suffrage 
laws  of  Connecticut.  The  court  of  New  Haven  proceeded 
to  enlighten  him  with  respect  to  the  suffrage  in  England; 
and  "  hee  was  informed  that  many  thousands  in  England, 
of  great  estates,  and  good  repute  in  other  respects,  haue  no 
vote  in  such  elections."  His  own  course,  he  was  told,  had 
been  "  full  of  pride  &  insolency,  himselfe  a  leader  to  disturbe 
the  peace  both  of  churches  and  commonwealth,  nay  to  ouer- 
throwe  all  foundations  laid  here  for  gouernment,  wch  by 
oath  he  stands  bound  to  maintayne  and  vphold,  so  he  hath 
discovered  a  false  and  rotten  spirit."  3  Another  of  the  mal 
contents  was  charged  with  teaching  the  same  doctrines,  "  w^h 
in  him  is  worss  then  in  another  because  hee  is  a  freeman  and 
*Atwater,  New  Haven,  404-406;  Trumbull,  Conn.  (ed.  of  1898), 

I,  175- 

'  New  Haven  Col.  Rec.,  1653-1665,  52,  55,  59,  60. 

8  Ibid.,  60. 


400     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

sometime  hath  bine  a  deputie  in  ye  general  court."  1  Still 
another  was  charged  with  "  pleading  for  liberties  in  votes, 
that  all  may  chuse  officers  for  publique  trust,  and  chuse  whom 
they  please;  and  because  it  is  not  granted,  he  growes  surly 
and  discontented."  In  the  Stamford  town-meeting  he  had 
said  the  town  deputies  were  really  church  deputies ;  "  and 
who  must  chuse  them?"  he  asked.  "The  free-men;  then 
said  hee,  wee  are  bond-men,  and  so  will  our  chilldren  bee, 
therefore  it  is  time  for  vs  to  looke  to  it."  So  widespread 
was  the  spirit  of  unrest  in  Stamford  that  the  general  court 
was  informed  that  "  the  generality  of  Stamford  did  desire 
they  might  haue  libertie  in  vots." 

Southold,  on  Long  Island,  was  the  scene  of  a  similar 
popular  movement.  The  leaders  claimed  the  government 
was  tyrannical ;  but  the  worst  remark  recorded  against  any 
of  them  was  the  statement  of  John  Youngs,  that  he  was 
"  vnsatisfyed  that  he  had  not  his  vote  in  chusing  millitary 
officers."  2  The  general  court  had  no  compromise  to  offer 
the  discontented  inhabitants.  They  were  fined  in  various 
amounts,  placed  under  heavy  bonds,  and  required  to  make 
confession  of  their  error.  Steps  were  also  taken  to  enforce 
more  rigidly  the  policy  of  tendering  the  oath  of  fidelity  to 
all  inhabitants,  and  report  was  to  be  made  to  the  general 
court  of  those  refusing  to  accept  the  oath.3  A  few  months 
later,  in  May,  1654,  all  persons  before  being  admitted  as 
inhabitants,  were  required  to  express  approval  of  the  funda 
mentals  restricting  the  suffrage  to  church-members,  and  then 
must  take  the  oath  of  fidelity  to  the  government  established 
in  the  jurisdiction.  This  approval  of  the  fundamental  laws 
is  so  unusual  a  provision  that  it  may  be  quoted  entire : 

"  It  is  ordered  that  vpon  the  admittance  of  any  man  as  a 
planter  into  any  plantation  in  this  jurisdiction,  the  funda- 
mentall  lawes  and  orders  concerning  votes,  &c.,  shall  be  read 
to  them,  and  if  approved,  the  oath  of  fidellitie  shall  be  admin- 

1  New  Haven  Col.  Rec.,  1653-1665,  61 

2  Ibid.,  94.     Where  the  right  of  election  of  military  officers  existed 
in  the  colonies,  it  was  almost  uniformly  vested  in  all  the  soldiers ;    so 
Youngs'  demand  was  a  remarkably  modest  one. 

3  Ibid.,  57,  96. 


The  Suffrage  in  Connecticut.  401 

istered  to  them,  the  plantation  wch  is  to  receive  them  being 
satisfyed  in  other  respects  by  a  satisfying  certifycate  from 
sufficient  credible  psons,  of  their  good  behaviour  &  conver 
sation."  1 


In  this  way  the  new  inhabitant  was  required  to  express  ap 
proval  of  the  fundamentals  and  swear  to  observe  the  rules 
by  which  he  might  be  perpetually  disfranchised. 

Yet  in  spite  of  the  firmness  with  which  this  popular  move 
ment  was  suppressed,  only  two  years  had  passed  when  the 
general  court  was  compelled  to  enter  upon  its  records  the 
fact  "  that  in  some  of  the  plantations  the  fundamental! 
lawes  of  the  jurisdiction  haue  not  bine  attended,  but  that 
others  besides  free-men  haue  had  libertie  to  vote  in  things  of 
weightie  trust  and  concernment;"  2  and  it  was  ordered  that 
the  fundamentals  be  "  exactly  attended,  and  none  suffered 
to  vote  but  free-men,"  except  in  cases  where  the  land  in 
terests  of  proprietors  were  at  stake. 

Again,  in  1661  the  limited  suffrage  led  to  disorders  in 
Guilford,  where,  however,  there  were  other  causes  of  dis 
content.3  The  appeal  was  made  this  time,  not  to  the  laws 
of  England,  but  to  the  very  fundamentals  themselves,4  the 
first  of  which,  while  limiting  the  suffrage  to  church-mem 
bers,  had  closed  with  the  guarantee  that  non-freeman  planters 
should  have  rights  "  to  their  inherritance  &  to  comerce."  5 
Doubtless  the  non-freemen  of  Guilford,  like  disfranchised 
classes  in  almost  all  other  communities,  had  discovered  that 
the  civil  and  economic  rights  granted  in  the  fundamentals 
could  not  be  fully  protected  without  the  political  rights 
which  the  same  fundamentals  had  denied.  The  general  court 
declared  6  to  all  "  godly  and  peaceable  inhabitants"  that  they 
hoped  there  would  be  no  cause  to  complain  of  withholding 

1  New  Haven  Col.  Rec.,  1653-1665,  98.     The  same  express  approval 
of  the  fundamentals  was  required  of  Oyster  Bay  when  it  applied  for 
union  with  the  colony  (ibid.). 

2  New  Haven  Col.  Rec.,  1653-1665,  177. 
8  Steiner,  Guilford,  100-103. 

*  New  Haven  Col.  Rec.,  1653-1665,  403. 
6  Ibid.,  1638-1649,  112. 
8  Ibid.,  403-404. 

26 


4O2     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

just  rights  and  liberties,  but  there  must  be  no  injury  done  to 
the  "  cheife  ends  and  interests,  professed  and  pretended  by 
all  at  our  coming,  combineing  and  setling  in  New  Eng 
land;"  and  from  which  no  "  disturbers  of  their  Israeli"  could 
divert  them  to  commit  their  "  more  weighty  ciuill  or  mili 
tary  trusts  into  the  hands  of  either  a  crafty  Achitophell,  or 
a  bloody  Joab."  With  a  bearing  more  conciliatory  than 
that  of  1654,  the  court  expressed  the  hope  "  that  all  planters 
would  make  it  their  serious  endeauour  to  come  in  by  the 
doore  to  enjoy  all  privilidges  &  beare  all  burdens  equall  wth 
themselues,  according  to  our  foundation  settlements  &  vni- 
uersally  professed  ends,  and  yt  there  may  be  noe  disorderly 
or  vncomely  attempts  to  climbe  vp  another  way." 

But  the  malcontents  were  not  to  be  left  much  longer  in 
their  disfranchised  state.  A  little  over  a  year  after  the 
trouble  in  Guilford  the  news  was  spread  in  the  New  Haven 
towns  of  the  terms  of  the  new  Connecticut  charter,  which 
seemed  to  include  all  the  New  Haven  lands  within  the  terri 
tory  granted  to  Connecticut.  The  possibility  of  enjoying 
the  wider  political  privileges  of  Connecticut  was  noticed  at 
once,  and  Southold,  in  which  we  have  seen  there  was  dis 
satisfaction  with  the  suffrage,  voted  to  send  deputies  to 
Hartford,  while  individual  planters  in  Guilford,  Stamford, 
and  Greenwich  were  immediately  admitted  freemen  of 
Connecticut.1  Thus  the  towns  in  which  the  agitation  against 
the  restricted  suffrage  had  existed  for  eight  years  were  the 
ones  to  first  leave  New  Haven;  and  it  is  quite  conceivable 
that  the  terms  later  accorded  to  New  Haven,  although 
favorable,  might  have  been  still  more  so  if  her  population 
had  unitedly  upheld  the  New  Haven  officers  in  their  opposi 
tion  to  the  claims  of  Connecticut. 

Although  the  extension  of  the  Connecticut  jurisdiction 
over  New  Haven  territory  by  the  charter  of  1662  was 
strongly  opposed  by  the  government  of  the  latter  colony, 
evidence  is  not  lacking  that  Winthrop,  who  secured  the 
charter  in  England,  believed  that  the  two  colonies  could  be 
harmoniously  united.2  But  if  such  were  the  case  his  hopes 

1  Atwater,  New  Haven,  463-465 ;   Conn.  Col.  Rec.,  1636-1665,  386-391. 

2  See  correspondence  of  Governors  Winthrop  and  Leete,  before  the 
departure  of  the  former  for  England  (Atwater,  New  Haven,  455-459). 


The  Suffrage  in  Connecticut.  403 

were  not  immediately  realized.  A  number  of  circumstances 
prevented  the  amicable  union  of  the  two  colonies;  among 
which  may  be  mentioned  the  absence  of  Winthrop  himself 
in  England,  the  hasty  action  of  Connecticut  in  accepting 
Southold  and  the  inhabitants  of  the  other  towns,  the  natural 
reluctance  of  the  New  Haven  authorities  to  yield  their  in 
dependence,  and,  as  strong  as  any  of  the  other  reasons,  the 
desire  to  maintain  the  New  Haven  religious  restriction  upon 
the  suffrage.  With  the  latter  reason  we  are  particularly 
concerned.  The  objection  does  not  at  first  appear  upon  the 
surface  of  the  New  Haven  Records,  but  in  March,  1662-3 
the  Connecticut  general  court  proposed  to  New  Haven  that 
there  should  be  no  interference  with  the  church  government 
of  New  Haven,  that  their  magistrates  might  remain  in  office 
until  the  succeeding  election,  that  representation  in  the 
Connecticut  government  be  given  to  New  Haven,  and  that 
all  present  freemen  of  New  Haven  be  at  once  admitted  into 
the  Connecticut  corporation.1  No  reference,  however,  was 
made  to  the  future  qualifications  of  freemen.  New  Haven 
rejected  these  overtures  until  more  definite  information 
could  be  obtained  from  England  respecting  the  meaning  of 
the  charter. 

In  August,  1663,  New  Haven,  on  her  part,  suggested  the 
making  of  a  treaty  between  the  two  colonies.2  She  pro 
posed  that  the  "  fundamental!  lawes  for  governing  especially 
yt  touching  the  qualificacons  of  freemen  shalbe  the  same  wtn 
Boston  or  our  (i.e.)  members  of  some  one  or  othr  of  or 
churches;"  that  no  infringement  be  made  upon  the  church 
ordinances  or  the  freedom  of  choosing  ministers;  that  the 
present  New  Haven  freemen  be  at  once  admitted  upon  an 
equality  with  those  of  Connecticut ;  that  a  new  law  book  be 
drawn  up;  and  that  the  freemen  in  each  town  should  elect 
their  town  officers.  Connecticut  replied  to  the  first  question  : 

"  That  the  patterne  or  foundation  from  wch  we  cannot  vary 
is  or  charter,  nor  dare  we  admit  of  any  fundamUs  varying 
from  ye  tenor  thereof,  but  w*  lawes  may  be  concurring  there 
with  and  conduceable  to  ye  publique  weale  of  church  and 

1  New  Haven  Col.  Rec.,  1653-1665,  475~477- 
1  Ibid.,  491. 


404     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

state  we  are  ready  to  grant  ye  establishm*  thereof,  &  pticularly 
for  quallification  of  freemen  we  are  ready  to  grant  that  they 
shalbe  men  of  a  religious  carriage  visibly  soe,  hauing  and 
possessing  some  competency  of  estate,  and  shal  bring  a  certifi 
cate  affirmatiue  that  they  are  thus  quallified  from  ye  deacons 
of  ye  church  and  two  of  ye  select  men  of  ye  towne  where  they 
Hue,  and  if  there  be  noe  deacons,  then  some  other  knowne  & 
approued  persons  w^h  ye  selectment  as  before."  * 

Connecticut  agreed  to  respect  the  church  ordinances  and 
privileges  and  to  accept  as  freemen  of  their  colony  all  the 
present  freemen  of  New  Haven.  She  refused,  however,  to 
follow  the  plan,  so  unpopular  even  in  New  Haven,  of  limit 
ing  the  town  suffrage  to  freemen.  Instead,  the  Connecticut 
committee  proposed  that  all  necessary  town  officers  should 
be  "  yearly  chosen  by  a  maior  vote  of  the  approued  in 
habitants/' 

These  propositions  were  the  most  liberal  which  Connecti 
cut  was  willing  at  any  time  to  offer,  and,  had  they  been  ac 
cepted  by  New  Haven,  a  modification  of  the  Connecticut 
freemanship  law  might  have  resulted  in  the  adoption  of  a 
rule  as  restrictive  as  that  of  Massachusetts  after  her  apparent 
yielding  in  1664  to  the  royal  commissioners.  But  New 
Haven  would  not  negotiate  until  the  towns  and  persons 
lately  accepted  into  the  Connecticut  colony  should  be  restored 
to  their  old  relationship.  Connecticut  refused  to  do  this,  and 
soon  there  appeared  the  greater  danger  of  a  union  with  the 
Catholic  Duke  of  York's  territory  to  the  westward.2  At 
last,  in  November,  1664,  came  the  decision  of  the  king's 
commissioners  that  New  Haven  was  included  within  the 
charter  limits  of  Connecticut,  and  there  was  no  further  op 
portunity  for  New  Haven  to  make  terms  with  her  more 
fortunate  neighbor.  The  towns  of  the  New  Haven  colony 
were  incorporated  into  Connecticut ;  those  New  Haven  free 
men  who  took  the  freeman's  oath  were  to  be  admitted  as 
freemen  of  the  latter  colony ;  3  but  New  Haven,  as  a  distinct 
political  entity,  was  not  permitted  to  enter  into  an  agree- 

lNew  Haven  Col.  Rec.,  1653-1665,  493. 

*  At  water,  New  Haven,  510. 

3  Conn.  Col.  Rec.,  1636-1665,  437. 


The  Suffrage  in  Connecticut.  405 

ment  with  Connecticut.  In  the  light  of  the  decision  of  the 
royal  commissioners,  Connecticut  had  no  need  to  make  com 
promises  with  the  New  Haven  men.  Her  magnanimity  in 
time  of  victory  did  not  extend  even  to  a  modified  recogni 
tion  of  the  theocracy  of  New  Haven;  and  the  religious 
qualifications  of  New  Haven,  which  a  year  earlier  might 
have  influenced  the  legislation  of  the  united  colony,  now 
gave  way  before  the  more  general  economic  and  political 
qualifications  of  Connecticut.1 

III.   Under  the  Charter  of  1662. 

The  Connecticut  charter  of  1662,  secured  through  the 
exertions  of  Governor  Winthrop,  erected  a  civil  corporation 
composed  of  nineteen  named  persons  and  "  such  others  as 
now  are  or  hereafter  shall  bee  Admitted  and  made  free  of 
the  Company  and  Society  of  our  Collony  of  Conecticut."  2 
Its  affairs  were  to  be  directed  by  a  governor,  a  deputy-gov 
ernor,  twelve  assistants,  and  two  meetings  of  an  assembly  in 
each  year.  The  general  assemblies  were  made  up  of  the 
"  freemen  of  the  said  Company,  or  such  of  them  (not  ex 
ceeding  twoe  Persons  from  each  place,  Towne  or  Citty) 
whoe  shall  be  from  tyme  to  tyme  therevnto  Elected  or 
Deputed  by  the  maior  parte  of  the  freemen  of  the  respective 
Townes,  Cittyes  and  Places."  The  governor,  deputy-gov 
ernor,  and  the  assistants  should  be  chosen  annually  on  the 
second  Thursday  in  May  "  by  such  greater  part  of  the  said 
Company  for  the  tyme  being  then  and  there  present."  The 
future  admission  of  freemen  was  vested  in  the  general 
assemblies,  to  which  full  power  was  given  "  to  Choose, 
Nominate  and  appoint  such  and  soe  many  other  Persons  as 
they  shall  thinke  fitt  and  shall  bee  willing  to  accept  the  same, 
to  bee  free  of  the  said  Company  and  Body  Politique,  and 
them  into  the  same  to  Admitt  and  to  Elect."  Such  other 
officers  as  the  assembly  "  shall  thinke  fitt  and  requisite  for 
the  Ordering,  mannageing  and  disposeing  of  the  Affaires"  of 

1  It  is  interesting  to  notice  that  the  last  meeting  of  the  New  Haven 
jurisdiction  was  made  up  not  of  freemen  alone,  but  also  of  as  many 
of  the  "inhabitants  as  pleased  to  come"  (Atwater,  518). 

2  Conn.  Col.  Rec.,  1665-1677,  4. 


406     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

the  company  should  be  constituted  by  the  general  assembly. 
The  territory  included  in  the  charter  was  not  clearly  defined, 
but  as  later  interpreted  by  the  king's  commissioners  it  com 
prised  not  only  the  Connecticut  jurisdiction,  but  the  New 
Haven  colony  as  well,  with  the  exception  of  the  Long  Island 
dependencies  of  the  two  colonies,  all  of  which  were  given  by 
the  king  to  the  Duke  of  York. 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  charter  had  the  freemanship  prin 
ciple  so  strangely  common  to  the  English  trading  companies, 
to  many  of  the  English  boroughs,  and  to  the  great  political 
organizations  of  New  England;  a  principle,  too,  which  the 
colonists  of  Connecticut  and  New  Haven  had  established 
for  themselves  in  their  autochthonous  communities.  Little 
change  was  made  by  the  charter  in  the  political  organization 
of  the  Connecticut  colony,  but  it  did  indirectly  break  down 
the  religious  qualifications  of  New  Haven  by  bringing  that 
colony  under  the  rule  of  Connecticut.  The  two  most 
noticeable  changes  in  the  Connecticut  customs  were  the 
entire  elimination  of  inhabitants  from  colonial  elections  and 
the  apparent  incompatibility  of  proxy  voting  with  the  terms 
of  the  charter.  iX/ 

Attention  has  been  called  to  th'e  two  distinct  classes  of 
voters  in  early  Connecticut;  freemen  only  being  permitted 
by  the  fundamentals  of  1639  to  vote  for  general  officers, 
while  properly  admitted  inhabitants  of  the  towns,  as  well  as 
freemen,  could  take  part  in  the  elections  of  deputies  to  the 
general  courts.  The  old  method  in  a  sense  made  the  deputies 
the  direct 'officers  of  the  towns;  but  the  new  charter,  by 
limiting  the  suffrage  for  deputies  as  well  as  colonial  officers 
to  freemen,  gave  the  representatives  a  colonial  character. 
The  deputies  were  no  longer  the  representatives  of  the  sev 
eral  towns,  but  of  the  freemen  of  the  colony  resident  within 
the  towns.  Naturally,  the  elimination  of  inhabitants  from 
such  elections  did  not  come  without  some  opposition  by  the 
disfranchised  and  formal  interpretation  by  the  assembly. 
The  general  court,  "  understanding  that  trouble  is  like  to 
ensue  upon  the  apprehension  of  seuerall  inhabitants  amongst 
us  respectinge  the  priuiledge  of  Freemen,  and  who  are  to 
make  choyce  of  Deputyes  and  publiq'  officers,"  felt  com 
pelled  to  order  and  declare  that  only  those  who  were  orderly 


The  Suffrage  in  Connecticut.  407 

admitted  by  the  general  assembly  into  the  freemanship 
should  have  a  share  in  such  elections.1  The  democratic 
ballot,  or  "  proxy"  voting  as  it  was  called  at  the  time,  was 
also  apparently  forbidden  by  the  charter.  This  had  been 
permitted  in  both  Connecticut  and  New  Haven.  It  was 
now  temporarily  suspended,  and  an  interpretation  put  upon 
the  charter  which  is  thus  described :  "  The  charter,  then, 
required  annual  elections  of  Colony  officers  by  popular  vote, 
at  a  mass  meeting  of  all  the  freemen  in  one  place,  and  par 
ticularly  specified  as  the  electoral  body  the  majority  of  the 
freemen  present  at  the  time  of  voting."  2 

In  discussing  the  suffrage  under  the  charter  of  1662  we 
shall  notice  the  facts  both  of  colonial  and  of  local  elections. 
Under  the  former  subject  mention  must  be  made  (a)  of 
the  qualifications  successively  imposed  upon  voters  down  to 
the  revolutionary  period;  (b)  the  re-adoption  of  the  proxy 
system;  (c)  a  few  figures  concerning  the  number  of  voters. 
Under  the  heading  of  local  elections,  the  franchise  for  town, 
for  church,  and  for  militia  elections  must  be  summarized, 
and  mention  made  of  the  voting  in  respect  to  proprietary 
claims  to  lands. 

The  charter  of  1662  changed  the  basis  for  the  suffrage  in 
New  Haven  from  a  religious  one  to  the  good  character  and 
property  qualifications  of  Connecticut,  but  it  may  be  doubted 
whether  this  change  would  have  resulted  in  an  extension  of 
the  franchise  if  the  Connecticut  restriction  of  1658-9  had 
been  retained  after  the  union.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
charter,  as  has  been  noted,  worked  a  limitation  in  Connecti 
cut  by  barring  non-freeman  town  inhabitants  from  the  elec 
tions  for  deputies.  Had  the  Connecticut  freeman  act  of 
1658-9  been  retained  after  the  enforcement  of  the  charter  a 
restriction  of  the  suffrage  in  both  colonies  would  have 
resulted.  But  the  Connecticut  politicians  were  too  liberal — 
or  too  shrewd  in  the  light  of  their  impending  struggle  for  the 
control  of  New  Haven — to  retain  so  high  a  property  quali 
fication.  The  meeting  of  the  first  general  court  after  the 
proclamation  of  the  charter,  in  October,  1662, — the  meeting 
in  which  Southold  and  the  inhabitants  of  other  New  Haven 

'Conn.  Col.  Rec.,  1636-1665,  417;   March  10,  1663-4. 
1  New  Haven  Hist.  Soc.  Papers,  V,  192. 


408     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

towns  were  accepted  into  their  government, — changed  con 
siderably  the  basis  for  the  franchise.  For  the  future, 
applicants  for  the  freemanship  must  be  twenty-one  years  of 
age ;  they  must  present  "  themselves  with  a  certificate  vnder 
ye  hands  of  ye  maior  part  of  the  Townesmen  where  they 
Hue,  that  they  are  prsons  of  civill,  peaceable,  and  honest  con 
versation;"  and  they  must  be  assessed  for  twenty  pounds 
estate,  besides  their  poll-tax,  in  the  list  of  estate.  Such  per 
sons  were  to  be  presented  at  the  October  general  court  or 
some  adjourned  court  yearly,  and  might  be  admitted  by  the 
assembly  in  the  following  May  after  the  election.  Persons 
walking  scandalously  or  being  legally  convicted  of  any 
scandalous  offence  were  to  be  disfranchised  by  the  courts.1 
This  act  lowered  the  property  qualification  from  the  pos 
session  of  twenty  pounds  personal  property  to  the  same 
amount  of  any  form  of  taxable  property ;  it  required  a  defi 
nite  certificate  of  the  good  character  of  the  applicant,  and  it 
placed  him  upon  a  six  months'  probation.2  In  two  and  a 
half  years  before  1662  only  three  freemen  had  been  admitted 
in  Connecticut ;  but  under  the  new  law  large  numbers  were 
admitted  at  once,3  and  many  others  propounded  and  ad 
mitted  after  the  six  months'  probation,4  while  some  were 
even  admitted  without  their  application  and  upon  the  con 
dition  that  they  accept  the  freemanship.5  For  eleven  years 
after  the  passage  of  the  law  of  1662  it  remained  unchanged, 
and  seems  to  have  been  administered  with  care.  The  records 
frequently  show  that  the  terms  of  the  act  were  not  mere 
formalities.  In  October,  1664,  we  read  of  seven  persons 
accepted  to  be  made  free  in  the  following  May,  "  if  nothing 

1  Conn.  Col.  Rec.,  1636-1665,  389. 

2  The  probation  feature  may  have  been  taken  from  the  similar  feature 
in  use  in  some  of  the  New  England  churches   (Atwater,  New  Haven, 
254)  ;    or,  more  probably,  it  was  copied  from  the  Plymouth  order  of 
1658,  requiring  freemen  to  stand  propounded  for  one  year. 

'Conn.  Col.  Rec.,  1636-1665,  386-389,  391,  406,  412,  425,  427-430. 
Many  of  the  new  freemen  undoubtedly  came  from  the  New  Haven 
towns,  but  a  number  were  inhabitants  of  the  original  Connecticut 
jurisdiction. 

4  Ibid.,  413,  433. 

5  Ibid.,  429-430. 


The  Suffrage  in  Connecticut.  409 

fall  in  as  a  just  exception  against  either  of  them  in  the 
interrem ;"  l  and  at  other  times  the  applicants  for  freeman- 
ship  are  said  "  to  stand  for  their  freedom,"  2  or  to  be  upon 
"  tryall  for  freemen."  3  In  at  least  two  cases  the  general 
court  saw  cause  to  defer  giving  the  freeman's  oath  to  certain 
probationers  "  until  some  farther  opertunity."  4 

The  few  years  following  the  grant  of  the  new  charter 
were  a  time  of  considerable  interest  in  the  suffrage  question. 
The  negotiations  with  New  Haven  were  under  way,  bring 
ing  to  the  front  the  advisability  of  moral  and  religious  quali 
fications;  the  new  law  of  1662  was  being  put  in  execution, 
while,  on  the  other  hand,  the  town  inhabitants  were  trying  to 
retain  their  right  to  vote  for  town  deputies.  In  the  midst  of 
these  domestic  difficulties  came  the  royal  commissioners  to 
investigate  the  political  and  religious  conditions  of  the  New 
England  colonies.  Colonel  Nicholls  and  the  other  com 
missioners  were  directed  to  make  known  to  Connecticut 
those  terms  of  their  instructions  concerning  Massachusetts 
which  properly  applied  to  Connecticut,5  and  the  Connecticut 
authorities  were  compelled  to  respond  to  a  list  of  require 
ments.6  They  replied  to  the  demand  for  all  householders  to 
take  an  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  king  that  persons  had  been 
appointed  to  administer  such  oaths  and  that  it  had  been 
taken  by  "  seuerall  persons  allready."  To  the  demand  "  that 
all  men  of  competent  estates  and  of  ciuill  conuersation, 
though  of  different  judgements,  may  be  admitted  to  be  free 
men,  and  haue  liberty  to  chuse  or  be  chosen  officers,  both 
military  and  ciuill,"  the  Connecticut  general  court  replied, 
"  our  order  for  admission  of  freemen  is  consonant  wtn  that 
proposition."  The  requirement  for  liberty  of  conscience 
called  forth  the  answer,  "  We  know  not  of  any  one  that  hath 
bin  troubled  by  us  for  attending  his  conscience,  prouided  he 
hath  not  disturbed  the  publique;"  and  the  commissioners 

1  Conn.  Col.  Rec.,  1636-1665,  433. 

2  Ibid.,  413. 

"  Ibid.,  1665-1677,  66. 

4 Ibid.,  14,   118.     In  the  latter  case  all  were  admitted  "only  except 
Annanias  Turrener." 

8  New  York  Col.  Doc.,  Ill,  55-56. 

9  Conn.  Col.  Rec.,  1636-1665,  439. 


4io     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

were  also  told  that  the  court  knew  of  no  laws  or  expressions 
in  laws  derogatory  to  the  king,  but  if  any  such  be  found 
they  should  consider  it  their  duty  to  repeal  them.  How 
well  these  replies  and  those  of  Rhode  Island  contrasted  with 
the  attitude  of  Massachusetts  has  been  told  in  the  com 
missioners'  own  words.1 

Interest  in  the  franchise,  however,  did  not  cease  with  these 
replies.  Three  weeks  later,  in  May,  1665,  tne  general  court 
re-enacted  an  earlier  law  by  refusing  to  admit  any  freemen  in 
the  future  unless  they  took  the  freeman's  oath,2  and  at  the 
same  meeting  the  court  adopted  measures  for  the  incorpora 
tion  of  New  Haven  freemen  into  the  Connecticut  company, 
with  an  implied  extension  of  the  suffrage  in  New  Haven.3 
A  year  later  the  assembly  was  compelled  to  adopt  the  first 
law  against  "  disorderly  and  corrupt  practices  in  the  election 
of  the  members  of  the  Gen11  Assembly."  4  If  the  terms  of 
such  laws  give  any  clue  to  the  condition  of  elections, — and 
usually  they  are  not  passed  until  occasion  demands  it, — 
unqualified  persons  must  have  been  voting,  and  some  free 
men  had  cast  more  than  one  vote.  Both  of  these  practices 
in  the  future  were  to  be  punishable  with  a  fine  of  five  pounds 
for  each  transgression.  In  1669  an  interesting  entry  in  the 
records  shows  how  several  persons,  who  were  unjustly  "  re 
pulsed  in  the  endeauoring  to  procure  their  freedome," 
brought  in  the  assessment  lists  to  show  that  they  had  suffi 
cient  property  to  qualify  them  for  the  freemanship.5  In 

1  Rhode  Island  Col  Rec.,  II,  127. 

3  Conn.  Col.  Rec.,  1665-1677,  15. 

s  Ibid.,  18.  The  Connecticut  freeman's  oath  was  to  be  administered 
to  so  many  of  the  New  Haven  freemen  as  would  accept  it,  and  to 
such  other  persons  who,  by  sufficient  evidence,  were  shown  to  be 
qualified  according  to  the  Connecticut  law. 

*  Conn.   Col.   Rec.,   1665-1677,   37. 

5  Ibid.,  107.  "  In  the  list  of  Estates  as  foloweth, — John  Tompson 
Junr,  471  155.  John  Beardsley,  87^.  12s.  6d.  John  Wells,  71!  5s.  od. 
Wm  Robberts,  76£  Sam"  Fayrchild,  44!  Samli  Mills,  39!  los.  The- 
ophilus  Shearman,  44^.  los.  This  Court  orders  that  those  aboue  written 
or  so  many  of  them  as  haue  unjustly  been  repulsed  in  the  endeauoring  to 
procure  their  freedome,  they  makeing  it  appeare  that  they  haue  been 
unjustly  debarred  of  that  priuiledg,  and  that  they  are  qualified  according 


The  Suffrage  in  Connecticut.  411 

the  same  year  the  selectmen  and  constables  of  each  plantation 
were  required  to  make  a  list  of  the  freemen  in  their  several 
plantations  and  send  it  "  fayrely  written"  to  the  general 
court,  where  the  names  were  to  be  recorded  by  the  secretary, 
"  that  soe  when  there  may  be  any  occasion  or  difficulty  about 
that  matter,  whoe  are  freemen,  it  may  be  the  easier  deter 
mined."  l  In  1670  the  democratic  method  of  proxy  voting 
was  restored. 

All  these  features  show  how  large  a  place  in  the  history 
of  the  colony  was  occupied  by  the  subjects  of  elections  and 
suffrage.  In  the  eight  years  from  1662  to  1670  the  pos 
session  of  the  freemanship  was  required  for  all  electors  in 
colonial  elections;  an  oath  was  imposed  upon  all  freemen; 
a  new  and  more  liberal  property  qualification  was  estab 
lished,  which  resulted  in  large  additions  to  the  class  of  free 
men;  the  religious  qualifications  were  overthrown  in  New 
Haven  and  their  place  taken  by  the  more  worldly  require 
ments  of  Connecticut;  satisfactory  answers  were  given  to 
the  inquiries  of  the  English  commissioners;  and  the  first 
steps  were  taken  towards  perfecting  the  machinery  of  elec 
tions  by  laws  against  fraudulent  voting,  by  the  drawing  up 
of  lists  of  freemen,  and  by  the  introduction  of  the  proxy 
system.  The  electoral  system  was,  in  these  years,  outlined 
in  a  form  which  was  little  changed  during  the  colonial 
period. 

Within  the  next  five  years  two  changes  were  introduced 
into  the  property  qualifications, — one  in  1673  raising  the 
qualification  and  the  other  in  1675  reducing  it  somewhat. 
The  printed  code  of  1673  changed  the  property  requirement 
from  the  possession  of  twenty  pounds  of  taxable  property 
to  twenty  pounds  value  "  in  Housing  or  Land,  beside  their 
personal  Estate  in  the  common  List."  2  But  this  amount 
seems  to  have  been  too  higrh,  for  onlv  two  vears  later  the 


to  lawe,  to  the  satisfaction  of  Mr.  Gold  &  the  Com**  of  Fayrefeild  and 
Stratford,  they  shall  stand  as  nominated  for  their  freedom  at  this 
court." 

1  Conn.  Col.  Rec.,  1665-1677,  112. 

3  The  Book  of  the  General  Laws  For  the  People  within  the  Jurisdic 
tion  of  Connecticut,  Cambridge,  1673,  26. 


412     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

amount  was  diminished  by  one-half,  and  for  the  next  four 
teen  years  the  property  qualification  stood  at  ten  pounds 
j^alue  of  taxable  real  estate.1  It  is  interesting  to  glance,  in 
this  connection,  at  the  actual  assessments  made  upon  land. 
In  1676  the  best  "  home-lots"  were  rated  at  forty  shillings 
an  acre,  and  the  worst  at  twenty  shillings;  the  most  valu 
able  farm  lands  were  listed  at  fifty  shillings  an  acre,  but  by 
far  the  greater  part  were  valued  at  from  ten  to  twenty  shil 
lings  an  acre.2  At  these  valuations,  a  freeman,  under  the 
law  of  1675,  must  be  possessed  of  from  five  to  ten  acres  of 
town  lots,  or  from  five  to  twenty  acres  of  farm  lands.  It 
is  thus  fairly  easy,  in  this  case,  to  transform  the  value  in 
pounds  into  actual  extent  of  freehold  required  for  the  voter. 
Connecticut,  with  the  rest  of  New  England,  passed  under 
the  government  of  Andros,  and  during  the  period  of  his 
administration  popular  elections  were  discontinued  except 
for  town  officers,  who,  according  to  the  laws  of  Andros,  were 
to  be  annually  elected  by  the  inhabitants  of  the  several 
towns.3  The  Revolution  of  1688  led  Connecticut  into 
political  irregularities  somewhat  similar  to  those  arising  in 
many  of  the  other  colonies,  and  the  same  means  were  taken 
for  the  restoration  of  the  charter  government  as  were 
adopted  in  Rhode  Island  and  Massachusetts.4  In  May, 
1689,  the  freemen  met  at  Hartford  and  there  three  propo 
sitions  were  made;  one  suggesting  the  reinstatement  of 
the  officers  who  were  dispossessed  by  Andros,  a  second 
advising  the  retention  of  the  officers  appointed  under 
Andros,  and  a  third  recommending  the  appointment  of 
a  committee  of  safety.5  By  a  somewhat  irregular  vote, 
the  first  measure,  that  of  restoring  the  old  officers  who 
had  not  been  permitted  to  serve  out  their  terms,  was 
adopted,  and  the  officers  installed  as  in  Massachusetts.  All 
through  this  proceeding  there  was  fear  of  offending 
England,  and,  in  order  that  the  terms  of  the  charter 

1  Conn.  Col.  Rec.,  1665-1677,  253. 
*  Ibid.,  294  ff. 

8  Conn.  Col.  Rec.,  1678-1689,  427. 
4  R.  I.  Col.  Rec.,  Ill,  257-258. 

"Bulkeley's  Will  and  Doom,  in  Conn.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll,  III,  153-160; 
Conn.  Col.  Rec.,  1678-1689,  455-460. 


The  Suffrage  in  Connecticut.  413 

might  be  the  more  fully  observed,  even  proxy  voting  was 
forbidden.1 

It  may  have  been  the  desire  to  propitiate  the  English 
authorities,  or,  as  Bulkeley  states,  perhaps  only  an  effort  to 
gain  political  advantage  2  that  led  the  assembly  in  the  fall  of 
1689  to  adopt  the  exact  provision  of  the  English  statute  of 
1430,  and  require  for  the  future  that  all  candidates  for  the 
freemanship  should  be  "  in  possession  of  freehold  estate  to 
the  value  of  forty  shillings  in  country  pay  per  annum."3 
The  exact  effect  of  this  change  from  a  taxable  valuation  to 
an  income  qualification  is  difficult  to  determine,  but  it  was 
evidently  in  the  direction  of  a  more  extended  suffrage. 
Bulkeley  believed  the  change  was  adopted  by  certain  of  the 
leaders  in  order  that  "  their  admission  of  freemen  [be] 
enlarged,  so  to  oblige  more  of  the  people  to  them  and  make 
them  a  greater  party."  4  This  may  have  been  one  reason  for 
the  change,  but  another  must  have  been  that  desire  to 
placate  the  English  authorities  by  removing  some  of  the 
freemanship  restrictions,  which  is  seen  also  in  the  proposi 
tions  for  a  wider  suffrage  in  Massachusetts  at  this  time.5 
The  act  of  1689  also  abolished  the  six  months  of  probation 
which  had  been  previously  required,  and  provided  for  the 
admission  of  freemen  by  any  assistant  or  commissioner,6  to 
whom  the  certificate  of  age,  good  character,  and  property- 
holding  was  to  be  presented,  and  before  whom  the  free 
man's  oath  was  to  be  taken.  Thus  the  assembly  delegated  to 
colonial  officers  the  power  of  admission  of  freemen,  which 
it  had  up  to  this  time,  in  accordance  with  the  charter,  kept 
in  its  own  control. 

With  the  dissipation  of  the  fear  of  English  intervention 
the  colony  reverted  to  its  old  method  of  a  fixed  valuation  of 
property  as  prerequisite  for  the  freemen.  The  code  of  1702 
established  the  suffrage  qualifications  in  a  form  which  com 
bined  the  mediaeval  English  requirement  with  a  more  liberal 
and  practical  American  test.  The  forty-shilling  freehold 

1  Conn.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.,  Ill,  160. 

2  Ibid.,  159- 

8  Conn.  Col.  Rec.,  1689-1706,  11.  *  Op.  ciL 

B  See  ante,  335~336. 

8  Justice  of  the  peace,  by  the  act  of  1702  and  later  years. 


414     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

provision  was,  indeed,  retained,  and  was  to  be  kept  during 
the  entire  colonial  period,  but  an  alternative  was  now  made 
to  it  by  which  the  applicant  for  the  freemanship  might  enter 
that  class  either  by  virtue  of  his  freehold  or  by  the  holding 
of  forty  pounds  personal  estate.'1  In  this  dual  form  of  per 
sonal  property  or  real  estate  the  suffrage  restrictions  con 
tinued  without  change  during  the  remainder  of  the  colonial 
period. 

The  new  personal  property  qualification  evidently  led  to 
election  evils  and  carelessness  in  the  admission  of  freemen. 
In  1705  the  assembly  was  compelled  to  refuse  the  freeman- 
ship  to  several  persons  to  whom  the  freeman's  oath  had  been 
irregularly  given;2  and  again  in  1708  irregularly  admitted 
freemen  were  referred  to  the  county  court  of  New  London.3 
In  1709  the  assembly  ordered  that  the  value  of  the  personal 
estate  as  well  as  of  freehold  should  be  taken  from  the  tax- 
lists  of  the  year  in  which  the  applicant  desired  to  be  enrolled 
a  freeman.4  It  is  also  remarkable,  in  the  light  of  Rhode 
Island's  efforts  to  adapt  the  property  qualification  to  the 
changing  value  of  the  colonial  paper  money,  that  no  such 
attempt  was  made  in  Connecticut.  In  1710  the  Connecticut 
paper  money  was  circulating  at  par;  by  1724  it  was  worth 
little  more  than  one-half  its  face  value  in  specie;  by  1739 
it  had  declined  to  one-third  specie  value,  and  in  1744  to  one- 
fourth.5  In  spite  of  this  depreciation  in  the  value  of  money, 
and  consequent  lowering  of  the  standard  of  admission  to  the 
freemanship,  Connecticut  made  no  changes  in  her  qualifica 
tions.  Indeed,  the  forty-shilling  freehold,  translated  later 
into  seven  dollars  income  from  land,  was  retained  as  one  of 
the  alternative  qualifications  of  the  suffrage  until  the  amend 
ment  in  1845  °f  the  constitution  of  i8i8.6 

1  Acts  and  Laws  of  His  Majesties  Colony  of  Connecticut  in  New- 
England.  Printed,  in  1702  and  now  first  reissued;  Acorn  Club,  1901, 
p.  40. 

3  Conn.  Col.  Rec.,  1689-1706,  511. 

3  Ibid.,  1706-1716,  79.  4  Ibid.,  129. 

6  H.  Bronson,  A  Historical  Account  of  Connecticut  Currency,  Con 
tinental  Money,  and  the  Finances  of  the  Revolution,  New  Haven  Hist. 
Soc.  Papers,  I,  50-52. 

6  New  Haven  Hist.  Soc.  Papers,  V,  233. 


The  Suffrage  in  Connecticut.  415 

Before  1662  admissions  of  freemen  were  sometimes  made 
by  the  general  court,  and  sometimes  by  specially  appointed 
officers.  Under  the  charter,  with  the  exception  of  a  few 
instances  in  connection  with  the  admission  of  New  Haven 
freemen,  the  assembly  invariably  acted  upon  the  admission 
of  each  freeman  until  the  year  1689.  The  election  act  of 
that  year  delegated  to  the  assistants  and  local  commissioners 
the  duty  of  examining  the  certificates  of  age,  good  character, 
and  property  of  applicants  for  the  freemanship,  and  em 
powered  these  officers  to  administer  the  freeman's  oath  to 
those  properly  qualified.  In  1729  this  duty  was  made  over 
to  the  "  open  Freemens-Meeting  of  the  Town"  1  to  which  the 
applicant  belonged ;  publicly  before  this  meeting  the  oath  of 
a  freeman  was  to  be  administered,  and  the  new  freeman's 
name  enrolled  by  the  town  clerk.  No  subsequent  change  was 
made  in  the  colonial  period. 

Summarizing  the  restrictions  upon  the  suffrage,  we  may 
say  that  there  was  no  formal  property  qualification  upon 
freemen  either  in  New  Haven,  down  to  the  union  with 
Connecticut,  nor  in  Connecticut  until  1658-9.  Up  to  this 
time  the  religious  qualifications  of  New  Haven  may  have 
been  paralleled  in  practice  in  Connecticut;  but  after  the 
passage  of  this  law  for  almost  two  hundred  years,  or  down 
to  1845,  a  property  qualification  was  one  of  the  alternative 
requirements  of  freemen.  The  amount  was  twenty  pounds 
personal  property  in  1658-9;  in  1662  it  was  changed  to  the 
same  amount  of  taxable  property;  in  1673  it  became  that 
amount  of  housing  or  lands,  and  in  1675  ^  was  changed 
again  to  ten  pounds  of  real  estate.  From  1689  to  1702  the 
sole  property  qualification  was  forty  shillings  freehold;  but 
in  the  latter  year  the  alternative  of  forty  pounds  personal 
estate  was  established  and  retained  until  after  the  Revolu 
tion.  From  1662  to  1689  a  six  months'  probation  was 
required;  while  from  the  earliest  period  to  the  latter  date 
freemen  were  admitted  by  the  general  court.  In  1689  ad 
missions  were  made  by  certain  officers,  and  in  1729  by  the 
town  clerks  in  open  town-meetings  of  the  freemen.  The 
age  of  twenty-one  years  was  first  expressed  in  1658—9, 

1  Session  Laws,  1729,  370;    Ch.  XLVII. 


4i 6     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

although  it  is  highly  probable  that  it  was  in  force  from  the 
beginning  of  the  colony;  the  good-character  clause  appears 
first  in  1657;  both  of  these  provisions  were  continued 
throughout  the  period.  From  1640  down  to  the  Revolution 
of  1776  every  person  admitted  as  a  freeman  was  compelled 
to  take  some  form  of  an  oath. 

Turning  from  the  suffrage  qualifications  to  the  manner 
in  which  this  franchise  was  exercised,  mention  must  be  made 
of  the  proxy  system  of  Connecticut.  Only  a  few  words, 
however,  can  be  said  here  concerning  this  interesting  system 
of  balloting,  but  the  reader  is  referred  to  the  papers  of  Judge 
Baldwin  for  a  full  exposition  of  the  subject.1 

The  fundamental  orders  of  1639  provided  for  the  election 
of  colony  officers  by  means  of  paper  ballots ;  2  and  New 
Haven's  constitution  of  1643  permitted  freemen  to  cast  their 
votes  by  proxy  if  they  did  not  find  it  convenient  to  attend 
the  election  in  person.3  The  latter  feature  appears  to  have 
developed  in  Connecticut  also;  and,  although  there  is  no 
statutory  provision  for  it,  we  read  that  in  1660  certain  towns 
used  "  to  send  Proxies,  at  ye  Election,  by  their  Deputies."  4 
This  method  of  sending  ballots  up  to  the  election,  instead 
of  personally  attending,  was  temporarily  suspended  by  the 
earlier  interpretation  of  the  charter  of  1662;  but  in  1670 
the  system  was  restored,  and  this  time  elaborately  outlined.5 

"  This  Court  being  sencible  of  the  great  charge,  difficulty  and 
expense  of  time  the  freemen  of  this  colony  are  at  by  reason  of 
their  great  numbers  and  remoatness  from  Hartford,  the  place 
of  election,  and  considering  the  many  inconveniences  that 
otherwayes  may  arise  upon  the  yearly  day  of  election,  and 
that  the  work  of  that  day  may  be  the  more  orderly,  easily 
and  speedily  issued, — It  is  ordered  by  this  Court  and  the 
Authority  thereof,  that  henceforth  all  the  freemen  of  this 
Jurisdiction,  wthout  any  further  summons,  from  yeare  to 
yeare,  shall  or  may  upon  the  second  Thursday  in  May  yearly, 

1  New  Haven  Hist.  Soc.  Papers,  V,  179-245;  Amer.  Hist.  Association 
Papers,  IV,  407-422. 

*  Conn.  Col.  Rec.,  1636-1665,  22. 

8  New  Haven  Col.  Rec.,  1638-1649,  113. 

*  Conn.  Col.  Rec.,  1636-1665,  346. 
8  Ibid.,  1665-1677,  131-2. 


The  Suffrage  in  Connecticut.  417 

either  in  person  or  in  proxie,  at  Hartford  attend  and  consum- 
ate  the  election  of  Gouernour,  Deputy  Gouernour  and  Assist8, 
and  such  other  publique  officers  as  his  Ma*le  hath  appoynted 
by  or  Charter  then  to  be  yearly  chosen." 

The  act  directed  the  manner  in  which  the  election  by  proxies 
should  be  managed,  so  "  that  there  be  no  fraud  or  deceipt 
used  therein;"  the  constable  was  required  to  read  to  the 
assembled  freemen  the  freeman's  oath  and  the  law  punishing 
disorderly  voting,  and  then  to  announce  the  names  of  those 
persons  who  had  previously  been  put  in  nomination  for 
office.  From  this  list  the  freemen  were  to  vote  by  ballot  for 
the  several  officers,  and  their  ballots  were  to  be  sealed  up 
and  sent  up  to  the  annual  election  at  Hartford. 

The  records  of  the  elections  do  not  show  the  use  of  ballots 
by  non-attending  freemen.  One  would  not  know,  from  a 
perusal  of  these  records,  that  many  of  the  freemen  never 
attended  the  elections.  We  read  such  vague  statements  as, 
'  This  day,  being  the  day  appointed  by  charter,  and  the  laws 
of  this  Colony,  for  the  Election  of  the  publick  officers  of 
this  corporation  .  .  .  the  freemen  of  this  corporation  pro 
ceeded  to  give  in  their  votes  to  persons  chosen  and  appointed 
...  to  receive  and  sort  them  .  .  .  And  the  votes  of  the 
freemen  having  now  been  brought  in,  sorted,  and  counted/' 
certain  persons  were  declared  elected.1  Better  phraseology 
to  hide  the  existence  of  the  proxy  system  and  the  absence  of 
a  majority  of  the  voters  from  the  annual  election  could 
hardly  be  conceived.  The  option  between  going  personally 
to  the  election  or  sending  his  vote  was  retained  by  the 
freeman  until  1750,  when  personal  attendance  was  abolished 
and  the  elections  were  conducted  entirely  by  the  counting  of 
ballots  previously  cast  in  the  freemen's  meetings  of  the 
respective  towns  and  carried  up  to  Hartford  by  the  deputies.2 

Closely  associated  with  the  suffrage  and  the  proxy  system 
was  the  Connecticut  method  of  nominating  candidates  for 
colonial  officers  by  popular  vote  of  the  freemen  in  the  towns. 
The  custom,  without  doubt,  was  drawn  from  the  similar 

1  Conn.  Col.  Rec.,  1706-1716,  309,  and  other  volumes  passim. 
*  Acts  and  Laws  Of  His  Majesty's  English  Colony  of  Connecticut, 
New  London,  1750,  p.  46. 

27 


41 8     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

feature  of  the  Massachusetts  code.  In  1670  the  nomination 
was  made  by  the  assembly;1  in  1689  the  power  was  given 
to  the  freemen  in  the  towns  to  hand  in  the  names  of  twenty 
persons  fairly  written  on  paper  as  nominees  for  the  colonial 
offices ; 2  and  the  twenty  having  the  greatest  number  of 
votes  for  nomination  were  to  be  the  number  from  which  the 
freemen  at  the  ensuing  election  should  choose  their  officers. 
In  1692  the  right  of  nomination  was  restored  to  the  assem 
bly;3  but  in  1697*  the  freemen  regained  the  privilege  and 
retained  it  throughout  the  period.5 

One  more  feature  respecting  the  colonial  suffrage  needs 
to  be  noted.  The  few  facts  which  have  been  gathered 
concerning  the  number  of  voters  can  be  stated  briefly.  The 
number  of  original  freemen  in  the  Connecticut  valley  is  not 
accurately  known;  but  the  actual  admission  of  freemen 
from  1639  to  J662  was  only  229,  and  during  this  time  it 
has  been  estimated  that  the  population  increased  by  about 
three  thousand.6  In  other  words,  only  one  person  in  thir 
teen  of  the  new  population  was  admitted  to  the  freeman- 
ship.  On  the  other  hand,  some  idea  of  the  proportion  of 
church-members,  or  freemen,  to  the  entire  population  in  New 
Haven  may  be  gathered  from  the  fact  that  only  99  men  are 
mentioned  as  receiving  seats  in  the  church  in  i646~7,7  at  a 
time  when  there  may  have  been  three  hundred  houses  in  the 
town.8  If  these  99  men  were  all  heads  of  families9  and 
householders,  there  would  still  remain  the  holders  of  twice 
that  number  of  houses  to  be  accounted  for ;  so  that  it  seems 
probable  that  only  one-third  of  the  householders  were  mem 
bers  of  the  church. 

We  know  the  exact  number  of  freemen  a  few  years  after 

1  Conn.  Col.  Rec.,  1665-1677,  133,  141. 

*  Ibid.,  1689-1706,  ii. 
•Ibid.,  Si. 

*  Ibid.,  223-4. 

"For  further  details  of  the  nomination  system  see  Baldwin,  Amer. 
Hist.  Assn.  Papers,  IV,  407  ff. 

8  New  Haven  Hist.  Soc.  Papers,  III,  313. 

7  Atwater,  New  Haven,  542. 

8  Doyle,  Puritan  Colonies,  I,  198. 
"  Atwater,  op.  cit.,  251. 


The  Suffrage  in  Connecticut.  419 

the  securing  of  the  charter,  for  in  1669  the  general  court 
ordered  a  list  of  all  the  freemen  to  be  made.1  These  lists 
have  been  preserved,  and  they  show  a  total  of  777  freemen.2 
Comparing  this  with  the  figure  2050, — the  whole  number 
of  men  in  the  colony  as  given  in  the  answers  to  the  Com 
mittee  of  Trade  and  Plantations,  in  167 1,3  it  would  appear 
that  three  out  of  every  eight  men  in  the  population  were 
freemen.  In  1692  we  have  such  general  statements  as  "  The 
greatest  part  of  ye  people  are  no  freeman  of  theire  Com 
pany;"4  and  "  the  other  people  of  Connecticut  (who  yet 
were  many  times  the  greater  number  of  the  people)  had 
nothing  to  do  with  it"  [the  election].5  The  same  writer, 
the  malcontent  Bulkeley,  says  again,  "  The  greatest  part  of 
the  people  of  this  colony  (I  believe  five  or  six  to  one)  never 
were  made  free  of  the  company."  6  In  the  following  year 
the  legislature  called  for  opinions  from  the  freemen  and 
inhabitants  upon  the  propriety  of  addressing  the  English 
monarchs  for  the  preservation  of  the  charter  privileges,  and 
received  an  affirmative  vote  from  2182  persons;  a  far 
greater  number  than  all  the  freemen  in  the  colony.7  Indeed, 
as  late  as  1723  the  total  poll  in  the  annual  election  for 
magistrates  was  only  1618  freemen.8 

The  figures  for  two  elections  near  to  the  Revolutionary 
period  are  extant,  and  they  show  an  actual  poll  of  one  vote 
to  fifty  or  sixty  persons  in  the  population.  A  contested  elec 
tion  for  treasurer  in  1768  called  forth  only  3385  votes;9 
which,  counting  the  population  of  the  time  at  I55,ooo,10 

1  Conn.  Col.  Rec.,  1665-1677,  112. 
*Ibid.,  518-526. 
•Ibid.,  1678-1689,  298. 

4  AT.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  111,853- 

5  Conn.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.,  Ill,  146. 
9  Ibid.,  129. 

7  Ibid.,  75 ;   Conn.  Col.  Rec.,  1680-1706,  102. 

8  Amer.  Hist.  Assn.  Papers,  IV,  418. 

9  Conn.  Col.  Rec.,  1768-1772,  4. 

10  Ibid..  1757-1762,  630.     In  1762  the  population  was  146,590,  an  in 
crease  of  10.788  in  the  preceding  six  years.    The  same  rate  of  increase 
would  make  155,000  a  conservative  estimate  for  1768   (see  Col.  Rec., 
1772-1775,  492). 


42O     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

would  make  the  voting  class  only  one-fiftieth  of  the  entire 
population.  In  1775,  at  a  poll  of  votes  in  October  for  nomi 
nees  for  the  election  in  the  following  May,  only  3477  voters 
took  part.1  In  1774  the  total  population  of  the  colony  was 
197,856;  of  whom  40,797  were  males  over  twenty  years 
of  age.2  There  was  thus  one  voter  in  twelve  of  the  male 
population  over  twenty  years  of  age,  and  only  one  in  fifty- 
seven  of  the  entire  population.  The  election  for  nominees 
may  not  have  aroused  the  greatest  interest ;  but  yet  the  two 
elections  of  1768  and  1775  show  a  similar  proportion  of 
voters  to  the  population;  and  it  is  quite  probable  that  the 
elections  in  the  years  preceding  the  Revolution  did  not  call 
out  more  than  two  per  cent,  of  the  population. 

In  the  local  suffrage  in  Connecticut  the  class  of  voters 
differed  more  or  less  from  the  freemen  of  the  colonial  elec 
tions.  There  were  four  forms  of  local  suffrage :  town 
elections,  church  elections,  militia  elections,  and  proprietary 
meetings. 

Attention  has  already  been  called  to  the  difference  in  the 
town  suffrage  in  Connecticut  and  in  New  Haven  before  the 
union  of  the  two  colonies.  We  have  noted  how  Connecticut 
permitted  non-freemen  who  were  regularly  admitted  in 
habitants  of  a  town,  to  vote  for  deputies  to  the  general 
court ;  and  how  the  terms  of  admission  were  for  a  time  left 
to  the  towns,  but  that  in  1657  the  assembly  prescribed  a 
general  qualification  for  the  class  of  admitted  inhabitants. 
For  military  elections,  the  suffrage  in  Connecticut  was  still 
wider,  the  right  being  given  to  the  soldiers  alone  to  nomi 
nate  their  officers,  and  to  the  courts  to  accept  and  install 
them.3  On  the  other  hand,  in  New  Haven  an  attempt  was 
made  to  limit  every  election,  except  those  concerning  pro- 

1  See  entire  votes  for  45  candidates  in  Conn.  Col.  Rec.,  1775-1776, 
I73-I74-  Each  voter  under  the  law  of  1697  voted  for  twenty  candidates ; 
and  the  number  of  votes  in  the  text  above  is  perhaps  not  accurate,  as  it 
has  been  gained  by  dividing  the  total  ballots  cast  for  all  candidates  by 
the  number  of  candidates ;  some  voters  may  not  have  voted  for  twenty 
persons. 

*  Conn.  Col.  Rec.,  1772-1775,  491. 

3  Code  of  1650,  Conn.  Col.  Rec.,  1636-1665,  543. 


The  Suffrage  in  Connecticut.  421 

prietary  rights  in  land,  to  the  body  of  freemen.  Elections 
for  colony  officials,  for  town  officers,  and  for  military  and 
ecclesiastical  leaders  were  all  to  be  concentrated  in  the  con 
trol  of  the  adult  male  church-members.  In  the  negotiations 
for  union,  too,  New  Haven  desired  to  retain  this  limitation 
of  entire  political  power  to  the  freemen,  but  the  Connecticut 
authorities  refused  to  yield  the  elective  rights  already 
granted  to  inhabitants  of  their  towns.1 

After  the  union  under  the  charter  of  1662,  the  basis  for 
voting  in  the  towns  was  fixed  by  the  terms  of  the  order  of 
May  17,  1660,  which  provided  that  no  one  should  be  received 
as  an  inhabitant  in  any  town  unless  he  were  known  to  be  of 
an  honest  conversation  and  admitted  by  the  vote  of  the 
majority  of  the  town  inhabitants.2  The  power  thus  vested 
in  the  towns  of  receiving  or  rejecting  applicants  for  in 
habitancy  was  retained  by  them  throughout  the  colonial 
period,  and  the  same  authority  is  conferred  upon  the  towns 
by  the  first  legal  code  of  the  state  in  I784.3  Such  formal 
admission  to  inhabitancy  was,  however,  only  required  of 
those  who  came  from  other  towns ;  the  sons  of  inhabitants, 
after  attaining  their  majority,  appear  to  have  been  classed 
as  inhabitants  Avithout  any  formal  vote  of  the  town.4  In 
this  respect  the  position  of  an  inhabitant  in  a  Connecticut 
town  was  similar  to  that  of  a  freeman  in  some  English 
boroughs  or  in  the  Rhode  Island  towns.  Apparently,  the 
word  inhabitant  in  Connecticut  in  the  eighteenth  century, 
did  not  have  its  English  legal  meaning  of  a  householder  or 
a  landholder,  but  rather  was  applied  to  those  who  were 
formally  admitted  into  the  town,  or  the  descendants  of  such 
persons. 

This  view  seems  to  be  borne  out  by  the  fact  that  the  voters 
of  the  towns  are  not  co-extensive  with  the  class  of  in- 

1  New  Haven  Col  Rec.,  1653-1665,  494. 

2  Conn.  Col.  Rec.,  1636-1665,  651. 

3  Code  of  1784,  102.     After  1750  the  right  to  admit  inhabitants  might 
be  exercised  by  the  town  as  a  whole  or  by  the  selectmen,  presumably 
as  the  town  should  determine  (code  of  1750,  99). 

4  See  the  record  of  a  contested  election  in  Lyme  in  January,  1714-15, 
and    the    decision    of   the    Governor   and    Council    respecting   electors 
therein  (Col.  Rec.,  1706-1716,  486). 


422     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

habitants.  The  early  laws  concerning  town  elections  vest 
the  right  of  suffrage  in  the  "  settled  and  approved  Inhabi 
tants"  of  the  towns; *  but  these  adjectives,  implying  accept 
ance  by  the  town  and  land-  or  house-holding,  were  evidently 
too  loose  a  description  of  the  class  desired  as  voters.  As 
early  as  1679  we  learn  that  "  there  are  in  most  of  the  plan 
tations  a  number  of  sojourners  or  inmates  that  doe  take  it 
vpon  them  to  deale,  vote,  or  intermedle  with  the  publique 
occasions  of  the  towne  and  places  where  they  doe  live,  to  the 
dissatisfaction  of  their  neighbours."  2  To  prevent  such  prac 
tices  the  assembly  made  the  following  restriction  upon  the 
local  suffrage: 

'/  This  Court  doe  order  that  no  person  that  is  not  an  ad 
mitted  inhabitant,  a  householder,  and  a  man  of  a  sober  con 
versation,  and  have  at  least  fifty  shillings  freehold  in  the  com 
mon  list  besides  his  person,  shall  adventure  to  vote  in  the 
choyce  of  towne  or  county  officers  or  grant  of  rates  or  lands, 
vpon  the  penalty  of  the  forfeiture  of  twenty  shillings  for  the 
breach  of  this  order;  provided  that  no  freeman  of  the  corpora 
tion  be  hereby  barred  from  voteing."  3 

It  will  be  noticed  that  this  act  placed  many  restrictions  upon 
the  town  voter ;  he  must  be  regularly  admitted  by  the  town 
into  its  political  and  economic  life;  his  character  must  be 
good ;  he  must  be  a  householder  in  the  town  and  also  own  a 
specified  amount  of  land  in  freehold. 

Only  three  years  after  the  passage  of  this  law  the  assem 
bly  was  compelled,  by  the  actions  of  "  sundry  persons  of  an 
ungoverned  conversation"  thrusting  themselves  into  the 
towns,  to  provide  that  no  person  should  come  to  reside  in 
any  town  without  the  consent  of  the  townsmen ;  and  a  fine 
of  twenty  shillings  for  every  week  was  imposed  upon  per 
sons  entertaining  such  sojourners  without  the  consent  of  the 
townsmen.4  In  1685  the  assembly  showed  the  same  dis- 

1  Code  of  1672,  65. 

*  Conn.  Col.  Rec.,  1678-1689,  34. 

3  Ibid. 

4  Oct.   12,   1682    (Col.   Rec.,   1678-1689,   in).     The  preamble   of  the 
law  is  interesting :    "  Whereas  sundry  persons  of  an  ungoverned  con 
versation  thrust  themselves  into  or  townships  and  by  some  underhand 


The  Suffrage  in  Connecticut.  423 

position  to  guard  carefully  the  town  suffrage  by  reaffirming 
the  provision  of  1660,  that  before  the  owner  of  land  in  any 
town  could  dispose  of  his  land  to  another  individual,  he 
must  first  offer  it  to  the  town.  Only  after  the  town's 
refusal  to  purchase  could  land  be  transferred  to  private  per 
sons.1  Yet  in  spite  of  the  care  of  the  legislature,  irregu 
larities  were  frequent  occurrences  in  the  town  elections. 
"  Cunning  contrivances  and  insinuations"  were  practised;2 
special  mention  is  made  of  "  young  persons"  3  and  those 
who  were  not  freeholders  or  householders  voting  in  such 
elections ; 4  and  a  number  of  disputed  elections  took  place.5 
In  one  of  these  cases  the  assembly  made  the  decision  that 
the  towns  possessed  the  power  of  judging  the  qualifications 
of  inhabitants  and  voters.6  A  slight  extension  of  the  suf 
frage  was  made  by  the  code  of  1 750,  which  gave  an  alterna 
tive  to  the  fifty  shillings  of  rateable  freehold  the  possession 
of  forty  pounds  value  of  rateable  personal  estate.7 

The  suffrage  in  church  meetings  and  elections  was  not 
exactly  like  that  in  the  towns.  In  1667  a  dispute  in  Windsor 
over  the  choice  of  minister  was,  by  the  general  court,  sub 
mitted  to  a  vote  of  "  all  the  freemen  and  householders"  of 
the  town ;  8  but  in  another  case  the  voters  were  merely 
described  as  inhabitants.9  In  1699  a  definite  enactment 
gave  to  all  the  householders  within  any  town  or  "  allowed" 


wayes,  either  by  pretence  of  being  hired  servants  or  of  hiring  of  land 
or  houses,  become  inhabitants  in  our  townships,  whereby  much  incon- 
veniency  doth  arise  to  such  places,  such  persons  often  proveing 
vicious  and  burthensome  and  chargeable  to  the  places  where  they 
come"  .  .  . 

1  Conn.  Col.  Rec.,  1636-1665,  351 ;   1678-1689,  186. 

•/.  H.  Univ.  Studies,  VII,  91. 

'Code  of  1715,  112-113. 

4  Conn.  Col.  Rec.,  1706-1716,  483-485. 

8  Ibid.,  486 ;   1726-1735,  85-86,  104 ;   1744-175°,  368. 

'  Ibid.,  1726-1735,  104. 

T  Code  of  1750,  241. 

8  Conn.  Col.  Rec.,  1665-1677,  73-74.  The  election  return  shows  138 
voters  in  the  town. 

u  Ibid.,  1678-1689,  101. 


424     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

church  society  the  right  to  call  a  minister  and  enter  into 
agreements  with  him.1  This  was  a  wider  suffrage  than  that 
for  town  elections;  but  it  was  not  long  retained  in  this 
form.  A  new  law,  in  i/oS,2  kept  the  broad  householder  or 
inhabitant  franchise  for  those  in  full  communion  with  the 
church,  but  required  non-church-members  who  voted  in 
church  matters  to  possess  the  qualifications  imposed  by  law 
upon  voters  in  other  town  affairs.3 

In  1728  the  alternative  of  forty  pounds  personal  estate  to 
the  fifty  shilling  freehold  was  introduced  into  the  church 
elections,  although  not  adopted  in  the  town  elections  until 
much  later.  Under  this  act  no  one  should  "  presume  to 
vote  in  any  society  meeting  for  the  choice  of  society  officers, 
grants  of  rates,  erecting  of  meeting-houses,  regulating  of 
schools,  or  any  other  thing  proper  to  be  voted  in  a  society, 
unless  such  person  or  persons  have  a  freehold  in  the  same 
society  rated  at  fifty  shillings,  or  forty  pounds  in  the  com 
mon  list,  or  that  are  persons  that  are  in  full  communion  with 
the  church."  4 

Early  in  the  eighteenth  century  the  church  suffrage  was 
complicated  by  the  privileges  given  to  Episcopalians  and 
Quakers,  whereby  members  of  these  sects  who  regularly 
attended  their  worship,  were  exempted  from  the  payment 
of  taxes  for  the  support  of  the  established  churches.5  This 
led  to  an  illogical  position  of  such  dissenters,  who,  in  spite 
of  their  non-attendance  upon  "  the  ministry  of  the  Presby 
terian,  Congregational  or  Consociated  churches,"  had  yet 
"  adventured  to  vote"  in  meetings  concerning  the  laying  of 
taxes  and  selection  of  ministers  of  those  churches.6  In 

1  Conn.  Col.  Rec.,  1689-1706,  316. 

2  Ibid.,  1706-1716,  48. 

"  The  major  part  of  the  inhabitants  of  any  town,  plantation,  or 
societie,  qualified  as  the  law  directs  to  vote  in  all  other  town  affairs, 
or  are  members  in  full  communion  with  the  church  in  the  said  town 
or  societie,  that  shall  be  present  at  a  town  or  societie  meeting  legally 
warned,  shall  have  power  by  the  major  vote  of  them  so  met  to  call 
and  settle  a  minister"  .  .  . 

4  Conn.  Col.  Rec.,  1726-1735,  211. 

6  In  1727  and  1729;   Conn.  Col.  Rec.,  1726-1735,  107,  237. 

e  Ibid.,  1744-1750,  218. 


The  Suffrage  in  Connecticut.  425 

1746,  therefore,  an  act  was  passed  excluding  from  partici 
pation  in  such  meetings  or  elections  all  those  who  were 
exempt  from  the  payment  of  taxes  for  the  support  of  the 
regular  churches.1  After  this  time  2  the  suffrage  in  religious 
societies,  or  in  town  meetings  when  religious  subjects  were 
discussed,  was  limited  ( i )  to  male  persons,  twenty-one  years 
of  age  and  in  full  communion  with  the  church  concerning 
which  the  suffrage  was  exercised;  or  (2)  non-church- 
members,  who  paid  taxes  for  the  support  of  the  established 
church,  and  who  were  possessed  of  a  freehold  rated  at  fifty 
shillings  or  a  personal  estate  of  forty  pounds;  but  those 
who,  by  regular  membership  in  and  attendance  upon  certain 
legally  determined  churches  dissenting  from  the  Congrega 
tional  form  were  freed  from  the  payment  of  church  taxes, 
were  also  excluded  from  the  ecclesiastical  elections  of  the 
regular  churches. 

The  militia  elections  of  Connecticut  were  based  upon  the 
reasonable  and  well-nigh  universal  custom  of  allowing  all 
the  soldiers  to  participate  in  the  choice  of  their  officers.  In 
New  Haven,  indeed,  it  has  been  noticed  that  the  suffrage  in 
such  cases  was  limited,  as  in  all  other  forms,  to  the  freemen 
of  the  colony;  but  that  this  method  proved  unpopular  and 
sometimes  even  inconvenient  has  already  been  shown.8 
After  the  union  of  1662,  however,  the  militia  elections  of 
the  entire  colony  were  conducted  according  to  the  pro 
vision  of  the  Connecticut  code  of  1650,  which  enacted  "  that 
the  Souldgers  shall  onely  make  choyce  of  theire  Millitary 
Officers  and  present  them  to  the  Perticular  Courte ;  but  such 
onely  shall  bee  deemed  officers  as  the  Courte  shall  con- 
firme."4  The  custom  of  nomination  resulted  almost  always 
in  the  acceptance  by  the  court  of  the  persons  chosen  by  the 
soldiers ; 5  although  the  records  do  show  that  on  infrequent 

1  Conn.  Col.  Rec.,  1744-1750,  218.    A  similar  act  had  been  passed  eigh 
teen  years  earlier  in  Massachusetts. 

2  A  slight  change  was  made  in  1750;    see  code  of  1769,  165. 
8  See  ante. 

4  Conn.  Col.  Rec.,  1636-1665,  543. 

8  See  records  passim;  e.g.,  1636-1665,  187,  210,  237,  290,  336;  1665- 
1677,  304. 


426     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

occasions  the  court  refused  to  confirm  those  who  were  pre 
sented  to  them.1  No  change  appears  to  have  been  made  in 
this  liberal  suffrage  except  one  in  words  rather  than  in 
spirit  in  the  comprehensive  military  act  of  1741.  This  act 
gave  the  right  to  vote  for  military  officers  to  all  those 
"  obliged  by  law  to  keep  arms."  2 

The  Connecticut  and  New  Haven  towns  had  an  economic 
organization  of  commoners  similar  to  that  in  Massachusetts 
and  the  other  New  England  colonies.  Whatever  may  have 
been  the  origin  of  the  town,  whether  it  was  an  indigenous 
community  or  one  erected  by  the  colonial  authorities,  there 
existed  in  either  case  an  economic  partnership  in  the 
land ;  the  settlers  who  obtained  the  land  constituted  a  quasi- 
corporation.3  The  land  belonged  to  the  original  settlers  and 
their  legal  successors;  and  the  admission  of  an  inhabitant 
into  a  town  did  not  necessarily  entitle  the  new-comer  to 
rights  in  commonage  and  in  the  undivided  lands.  In  reality, 
however,  there  was  frequently  no  distinction  made  between 
the  town  meeting  of  inhabitants  and  the  corporation  meet 
ing  of  the  proprietors  of  the  town  lands.4  In  the  early 
history  of  many  towns  when  the  two  classes  were  nearly 
identical,  land  grants  and  distributions  were  made  in  the 
open  town  meeting,  and  sometimes  persons  voted  who  had 
no  share  in  the  common  lands.  But  changing  conditions 
gradually  led  to  a  separation  of  the  two  classes;  many 
persons  came  into  the  towns  who  could  not  purchase  a 
share  in  the  town  stock  in  lands,  and  to  whom  the  town 
refused  to  give  such  a  share;  the  value  of  land  rose  after 
the  population  increased,  and  soon  the  early  liberality  in 
land  distribution  5  gave  place  to  a  strong  feeling  of  owner- 

1  Conn.  Col.  Rec.,  1678-1689,  126 ;    1689-1706,  45 ;    1706-1716,  485. 

2  Ibid.,  1735-1743,  379-387. 

3  Egleston,  Land  System  of  the  New  England  Colonies,  J.  H.  Univ. 
Stud.,  IV,  580. 

4  It  is  interesting  to  notice  that  the  only  cases  in  which  New  Haven 
contemplated  the  extension   of  the  suffrage  to   non-freemen  were  in 
respect  to  the  ownership  of  lands. 

6  New  Haven,  in  her  early  distributions,  gave  so  many  acres  for  each 
person,  and  so  many  for  each  share, — a  combination  of  persons  and 
property  very  unusual  (Levermore,  New  Haven,  83-85). 


The  Suffrage  in  Connecticut.  427 

ship  among  the  original  proprietors  or  their  successors.  The 
process  of  integration  of  the  class  of  proprietors  in  the  face 
of  opposition  by  the  inhabitants  led  to  differing  develop 
ment  in  the  several  towns.  One  writer  says  that  in  Wethers- 
field  the  town  overshadowed  the  proprietors,  in  Windsor 
the  proprietors  overshadowed  the  town,  while  in  Hartford 
the  balance  was  about  equally  preserved.1  As  late  as  1719 
the  entire  town  of  Simsbury  retained  control  of  the  lands 
and,  much  to  the  offence  of  the  proprietors,  made  many  land 
grants.2  Even  where  the  proprietors  alone  controlled  land 
matters,  the  question  of  the  suffrage  was  a  burning  one, 
for  it  was  not  clear  at  first  whether  voting  in  such  meetings 
should  be  in  proportion  to  the  shares  of  the  respective  pro 
prietors  or  whether  each  proprietor  should  have  but  one 
vote.3 

For  many  years  after  the  settlement  of  the  colony  there 
was  no  general  statutory  provision  respecting  the  rights  or 
duties  of  proprietors  of  the  undivided  lands,4  and  their  posi 
tion  must  have  been  determined  by  the  local  customs  and  cir 
cumstances  of  the  respective  towns.  Although  their  lands 
became  "  an  undoubted  lawful  estate  of  inheritance"  to  the 
proprietors  and  their  successors,  yet  "  the  said  proprietors 
did,  for  a  considerable  number  of  years  in  many  of  our 
towns,  truly  consent  and  agree  that  the  said  common  lands 
might  in  whole  or  in  part,  be  actually  divided  or  disposed 
of  by  the  major  vote  of  the  inhabitants  of  such  towns  in 
meeting  assembled."  5  In  1701  was  passed  what  is  believed 
to  be  the  first  act  distinctly  separating  the  proprietors  from 
the  town;  but  even  in  this  act,  which  only  concerned  the 
building  of  fences  about  common  lands,  the  advice  of  the 
selectmen  of  the  town  was  required  upon  such  matters.6 
The  code  of  1702,  however,  went  much  farther  in  the 
erection  of  the  proprietors  as  distinct  corporations.  Accord- 

1  Andrews,  in  /.  H.  Univ.  Stud.,  VII,  52. 
3  Egleston,  /.  H.  Univ.  Stud.,  IV,  584. 
'Andrews,  op.  cit. 

*  The  code  of  1672  makes  no  reference  to  proprietors  of  lands  as 
possessing  distinct  communal  rights  or  duties. 

8  Conn.  Col.  Rec.,  1717-1725,  395. 

9  Ibid.,  1689-1706,  346. 


428     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

ing  to  the  provisions  therein,  the  "  Proprietors  in  any 
Comon  Field  in  this  Colony,  or  so  many  of  them  as  are 
residing  in  the  Town  or  Plantation  where  such  Common 
Field  is  Situate,"  were  empowered  to  meet  together  for 
certain  communal  purposes,  and  choose  committeemen  to 
attend  to  the  details  of  management  of  the  fields.1  The 
question  of  suffrage  was  settled  by  allowing  each  person  to 
vote  in  proportion  to  his  holding,  thus  establishing  an 
economic  unit  as  a  basis  for  voting  in  place  of  the  earlier  and 
more  democratic  personal  suffrage.2 

In  spite  of  these  requirements  and  of  similar  ones  in  an 
act  of  I7o6,3  the  towns  in  some  cases  retained  control  of 
common  lands.  But  the  contest  for  possession  of  these 
lands  led  at  last  to  actual  riots  between  claimants  under  the 
authority  of  the  towns  and  those  under  the  authority  of  the 
proprietors.4  In  1723  the  assembly  settled  these  differences 
by  an  act  which  acknowledged  the  property  right  of  the 
proprietors;  but  it  stated  that  the  proprietors  had,  in  many 
towns,  voluntarily  permitted  the  towns  to  legislate  about 
their  lands ;  and  consequently  that  all  land  grants  made  in  the 
past  by  towns  under  such  circumstances  should  be  valid.5 
For  the  future,  however,  no  person  by  becoming  an  in 
habitant  of  a  town,  or  by  any  other  means  "  against  or 
without  the  consent  of  such  proprietors,"  could  gain  any 
title  or  interest  in  the  common  lands.  The  proprietors 
themselves  or  their  legal  representatives  could  hold  meet 
ings,  and  "  by  their  major  vote  in  such  their  meetings,  (to 
be  reckoned  according  to  their  interest  in  such  common 
land,)  to  regulate,  improve,  manage  and  divide  such  com 
mon  land  in  such  manner  and  proportion  as  they  shall  see 
good."  Thus  by  this  act  the  proprietors  and  town  inhabi 
tants  were  definitely  distinguished;  and  the  old  political 

1  Laws  of  Connecticut,  1702,  16. 

'  All  matters  concerning  common  fields  "  shall  be  determined  by  the 
vote  of  the  major  part  of  the  Proprietors,  which  major  part  shall  be 
computed,  not  according  to  the  number  of  Persons  that  are  Proprietors, 
but  according  to  their  interest  in  such  Field." 

*  Conn.  Col.  Rec.,  1689-1706,  544. 

4  Ibid.,  1717-1725,  332-348. 

"Ibid.,  396. 


The  Suffrage  in  Connecticut.  429 

idea  of  voting  in  the  proprietary  meetings  was  overthrown 
not  only  by  making  the  suffrage  proportional  to  the  respec 
tive  shares  in  land,  but  also  by  permitting  the  representa 
tion  of  the  proprietors  by  means  of  their  legal  agents.  These 
changes  took  away  from  the  meetings  what  little  political 
character  they  had  possessed,  and  made  them  simply  the 
gatherings  of  business  co-partners. 


CHAPTER    XIV. 
THE  SUFFRAGE  IN  RHODE  ISLAND. 

I.  From  the  Time  of  Settlement  to  the  Charter  of  1663. 

The  colony  of  Rhode  Island  owed  its  immediate  existence 
to  the  religious  intolerance  of  Massachusetts.  Around  the 
borders  of  the  great  Puritan  Commonwealth  there  arose 
numerous  small  settlements  founded  by  Massachusetts  men. 
Sometimes  lured  by  the  fertility  of  the  neighboring  lands, 
the  exile  of  these  persons  was  voluntary ;  but  in  many  cases 
the  religious  persecution  of  the  Puritans  drove  their  weaker 
opponents  into  new  settlements  where  they  hoped  to  live 
beyond  the  realm  of  Massachusetts  interference.  Some  of 
the  Connecticut,  New  Hampshire,  and  Maine  settlements 
were  founded  for  the  first  of  these  causes,  and  some  on 
account  of  the  second ;  but  in  the  case  of  Rhode  Island  the 
religious  motive  was  uppermost.  Here  to  a  greater  degree- 
than  in  Connecticut  or  New  Hampshire  we  see  a  community 
of  non-conformists ;  by  no  means  a  unit  upon  the  points  of 
difference  with  the  Massachusetts  religion,  yet  for  one 
reason  or  another  opposing  the  hierarchy,  and  out  of  the 
very  multiplicity  of  their  views  compelled  to  tolerate  one 
another's  opinions.  Williams  had,  of  course,  even  in  Massa 
chusetts,  spoken  in  favor  of  liberty  of  conscience ;  and  under 
his  influence  the  necessity  for  toleration  arising  from  the 
multiplicity  of  beliefs  became  a  conscious  ideal  of  the  new 
state. 

And  as  their  theory  of  religion  was  an  original  one,  so 
Rhode  Island's  political  organization  was  purely  indigenous ; 
there  was  no  charter  obtained  from  the  king,  no  grant  of 
land  or  town  privileges  from  the  General  Court  of  Massa 
chusetts,  nor  any  delegation  of  authority  from  proprietor  or 
chartered  company.  In  defiance  of  the  monarchical  theories 
of  the  time,  political  organization  proceeded  not  from  above 
down  to  the  people,  but  from  the  people  up  to  their  rulers. 
A  small  group  of  Englishmen  found  themselves  in  the 
430 


The  Suffrage  in  Rhode  Island.  431 

American  wilderness,  almost  in  a  "  state  of  nature,"  as  the 
eighteenth  century  philosophers  would  say.  Too  poor  and 
insignificant  to  expect  formal  incorporation  by  the  English 
government,  and  under  the  impelling  necessity  of  reaching 
a  common  rule  of  action  among  themselves,  they  were 
forced  to  adopt  some  form  of  association.  The  agreement 
might  first  be  needed  in  order  to  get  a  joint  stock  to  purchase 
lands  from  the  Indians,  it  would  be  continued  in  order  to 
provide  for  the  distribution  of  the  land  so  purchased,  and 
be  perpetuated  by  the  necessity  of  adopting  some  rules  for 
civil  action,  and  the  election  of  new  members  or  of  local 
officers.  The  association  might  be  started  with  a  written 
document,  as  when  the  settlers  on  Rhode  Island,  ignoring 
altogether  English  king  or  government,  say  with  charming 
naivete  that  we  "  incorporate  ourselves  into  a  Bodie  Poli 
tick,"  and  submit  "  our  persons,  lives  and  estates  unto  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  King  of  Kings  and  Lord  of  Lords ;" 
or  it  might  be  a  personal  arrangement,  as  that  between 
Roger  Williams  and  his  five  associates,  or  between  Samuel 
Gorton  and  his  friends  at  Warwick,  of  which  to-day  we 
have  no  written  record.  In  any  event  a  more  or  less  formal 
agreement  was  voluntarily  reached  among  these  exiles,  ac 
cording  to  which  they  virtually  erected  themselves  into  a 
corporation,  and  proceeded  to  adopt  such  local  laws  and 
elect  such  officers  as  appeared  to  them  necessary. 

For  a  time  these  distinct  town  governments  were  the  only 
form  of  political  organization  in  the  Narragansett  region, 
but  union  among  the  towns  came  within  a  few  years.  First 
there  was  the  voluntary  federation  in  1640  of  Portsmouth 
and  Newport,  both  situated  on  Rhode  Island,  and  the  latter 
an  offshoot  of  the  former.  This  was  followed  by  the  en 
forced  union  of  all  the  towns  under  the  charter  of  1644. 
But  a  united  colony  was  not  so  easily  established,  and  the 
grant  of  a  conflicting  charter  to  the  towns  on  Rhode  Island 
led  to  great  confusion.  Another  voluntary  union  of  the 
towns  under  the  charter  of  1644  was  made  permanent  by 
the  grant  of  a  royal  charter  in  1663.  It  is  important  for  our 
study  of  the  suffrage  in  Rhode  Island  to  remember  that  the 
towns  antedated  the  colony ;  there  was  a  town  freemanship, 
there  were  town  meetings  and  town  elections  before  any 


432     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

colonial  freemanship  or  elections  existed.  And  throughout 
the  whole  period  of  our  study  we  shall  find  that  in  each  indi 
vidual's  case,  as  in  the  history  of  the  colony,  the  town  free 
manship  came  before  the  colony  freemanship ;  a  person  must 
be  admitted  a  freeman  of  some  town  before  he  could  be 
come  a  freeman  of  the  colony.  We  must,  therefore,  look  at 
the  suffrage  conditions  in  the  towns  before  considering  the 
colonial  franchise. 

Before  the  granting  of  the  first  charter  to  the  colony  there 
were  three  organized  towns,  Providence,  Portsmouth  and 
Newport,  and  an  unorganized  settlement  on  the  land  later 
called  by  the  name  of  Warwick.  In  Providence  Roger  Wil 
liams  purchased  a  tract  of  land  from  the  Indians;  he  ad 
mitted  twelve  others  to  an  equal  share  in  this  land,  and  in 
his  "  initial  deed"  he  anticipated  the  association  of  "  such 
others  as  the  major  part  of  us  shall  admit  into  the  same 
fellowship  of  vote  with  us."  *  A  town  organization  was 
early  formed,  but  no  record  exists  of  a  town  agreement, 
until  a  second  party  of  thirteen  heads  of  families  was  ac 
cepted  and  made  "  incorporate"  2  into  the  town.  The  new 
comers  signed  the  well-known  agreement  of  obedience  to  the 
town  government  in  civil  matters : 

"We  whose  names  are  hereunder  desirous  to  inhabit!  in  ye  towne 
of  prouidence  do  promise  to  subiect  ourselves  in  actiue  or  passiue 
obedience  to  all  such  orders  or  agreements  as  shall  be  made  for  publick 
good  of  or  body  in  an  orderly  way  by  the  maior  consent  of  the  present 
Inhabitants  maisters  of  families  Incorporated  together  into  a  towne 
fellowship  and  others  whome  they  shall  admitt  unto  them 
only  in  ciuill  things."  8 

In  the  case  of  Portsmouth  and  Newport  the  town  life 
began  with  a  voluntary  agreement  among  the  intending 
settlers  before  they  arrived  at  the  place  of  settlement.  Thus 
nineteen  persons  intending  to  settle  upon  the  Island  of 

1  Records  of  the  Colony  of  Rhode  Island  and  Providence  Plantations, 
I,  19-24  (quoted  hereafter  as  R.  I.  Col  Rec.)  ;  Arnold,  Hist,  of  R.  I. 
(ed.  of  1894),  I,  100;  Staples,  Annals  of  Providence,  26-33. 

1  R.  I.  Col.  Rec.,  I,  20. 

*  Providence  Records,  I,  i ;   R.  I.  Col.  Rec.,  I,  14. 


The  Suffrage  in  Rhode  Island.  433 

Aquedneck  (Rhode  Island),  met  at  Providence  on  March  7, 
1637-8,  and  incorporated  themselves  by  the  following-  agree 
ment, 

"  We  whose  names  are  underwritten  do  here  solemnly  in  the  pres 
ence  of  Jehovah  incorporate  ourselves  into  a  Bodie  Politick  and  as  he 
shall  help,  will  submit  our  persons,  lives  and  estates  unto  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  the  King  of  Kings  and  Lord  of  Lords  and  to  all  those 
perfect  and  most  absolute  lawes  of  his  given  us  in  his  holy  word  of 
truth,  to  be  guided  and  judged  thereby,  Exod.  24,  3,  4.  2  Cron.  II,  3. 
2  Kings  u,  17." * 

The  inhabitants  who,  in  1639,  set  out  from  the  north  of  the 
island  and  founded  Newport  made  a  mutual  promise  to 
bear  equal  burdens  according  to  their  strength  or  property : 

"  It  is  agreed.  By  vs  whose  hands  are  underwritten,  to  propagate 
a  Plantation  in  the  midst  of  the  Island  or  elsewhere ;  And  doe 
engage  ourselves  to  bear  equall  charges,  answerable  to  our  strength  and 
estates  in  common;  and  that  our  determinations  shall  be  by  major 
voice  of  judge  and  elders;  the  Judge  to  have  a  double  voice."2 

The  latter  agreement  shows  a  more  compact  organization 
than  the  earlier  one,  and  a  stronger  political  spirit,  but  it 
makes  no  mention  of  God.  Another  agreement  entered  into 
by  those  who  remained  behind  after  the  officers  and  prin 
cipal  men  had  moved  to  the  centre  of  the  island,  is  the  only 
one  of  the  town  agreements  which  makes  reference  to  the 
English  government. 

"  We,  whose  names  are  under  written  doe  acknowledge  ourselves 
the  legall  subjects  of  his  Majestic  King  Charles,  and  in  his  name  doe 
hereby  binde  ourzelves  into  a  civill  body  politicke  under  his  lawes 
according  to  matters  of  justice."  8 

In  three  of  these  agreements  it  will  be  noticed  that  the 
political  organization  is  begun  by  the  voluntary  compact  of 
the  signers  to  the  document,  while  in  the  Providence  paper 

1  R.  I.  Col.  Rec.,  I,  52;    Arnold,  History  of  Rhode  Island  (edition  of 
1894),  I,  124. 

2  Ibid.,  I,  87. 

'April  30,  1639;   R.  I.  Col.  Rec.,  I,  70. 


434     The  Suffrage  Franchise*  in  tlie  English  Colonies. 

there  is  a  joint  agreement  between  a  group  of '  new-comers 
and  the  old  proprietors.  We  have  here  democracy  in  the 
making;  the  fiat  of  the  group  of  friends  or  neighbors  that 
they  will  unite  in  a  civil  government  based  upon  the  principle 
of  equality.  This  principle  is  here  an  outgrowth  of  two 
things;  their  entire  isolation  from  any  higher  authority 
which  might  impose  governors  upon  them,  and  the  eco 
nomic  situation  according  to  which  they  shared  equally  in 
the  burden  of  purchasing  land  and  enjoyed  equally  the  right 
to  lands  so  acquired.  This  was  carried  to  such  an  extent 
that  the  widows  of  proprietors  sometimes  gave  their  consent 
to  matters  of  a  purely  civil  nature  in  a  way  which,  if  it 
cannot  be  called  exercising  the  suffrage  franchise,  at  least 
shows  some  participation  in  the  political  rights  of  land 
holders.1 

The  original  proprietors  of  the  towns  did  not  keep  all 
their  purchase,  but  they  admitted  others  to  their  number 
under  certain  restrictions  which  differed  somewhat  in  the 
several  towns.2  But  since  the  original  holders  could  admit 
new  associates  upon  any  terms  they  saw  fit  to  impose,  the 
suffrage  qualifications  in  these  towns  are  identical  with  the 
conditions  imposed  upon  freemen  at  the  time  of  their  accept 
ance  by  the  town. 

In  Providence,  Roger  Williams'  first  twelve  associates 
together  paid  him  thirty  pounds,  and  the  second  group  of 
thirteen  persons  gave  him  twenty  pounds,  for  the  privilege 
of  associating  with  him  on  equal  terms  in  the  land  and 
government.3  In  1640  the  town  resolved  that  all  present 

1  Among  the  signatures  of  persons  accepting  the  report  of  the  arbi 
trators  in  Providence  in  July,  1640,  are  those  of  two  widows    (R.  I. 
Col.  Rec.,  I,  31). 

2  Persons   so   admitted   were   usually   called   freemen,    following  the 
Massachusetts  custom  with  which  the  settlers  must  have  been  familiar ; 
sometimes    the    word    townsman    is    used,    and    occasionally    they    are 
called  inhabitants ;    but  generally  the  latter  phrase  is  reserved  for  a 
class  of  persons  who  were  permitted  to  live  in  the  town,  but  to  whom 
the  political  rights  and  land  claims  of  the  proprietors  or  freemen  were 
not  extended. 

*R.  I.  Col.  Rec.,  I,  21,  23. 


The  Suffrage  in  Rhode  Island.  435 

and  future  townsmen  should  pay  thirty  shillings.1  But  oc 
casionally  smaller  payments  were  made,  presumably  for 
smaller  land  grants  than  those  given  to  the  early  settlers.2 
On  Rhode  Island  the  general  meeting  on  June  27,  1638, 
ordered  that  all  persons,  whether  freemen  or  inhabitants, 
upon  the  island  should  pay  two  shillings  for  each  acre  of  land 
occupied.3  In  one  instance,  in  Providence,  each  one  of  a 
group  of  thirty-five  settlers  received  a  free  grant  of  twenty- 
five  acres ;  but  they  signed  an  agreement  not  to  claim  "  any 
Righte,  to  the  Purchasse  of  the  Said  plantation;  Nor  any 
privillidge  of  Vote,  in  Towne  Affaires;  untill  we  shall  be 
received,  as  free-Men  of  the  said  Towne  of  Providence."  4 
Besides  the  usual  money  payment,  other  conditions  were  im 
posed  upon  the  new  inhabitant.  He  must  in  all  cases  be 
acceptable  to  the  town,  and  admitted  by  the  vote  of  the  town 
meeting  5  or  of  the  town  officers ;  6  he  might  be  required  to 
fence  his  land,7  or  to  build  a  house  on  his  lot,8  or  not  to  be 
absent  from  his  land  longer  than  a  specified  time ; 9  and  on 
Rhode  Island  a  purchaser  who  did  not  reside  on  the  island 
lost  his  vote.10  In  practically  all  cases  the  new  settlers  were 
required  to  take  some  form  of  oath  or  "  engagement"  to  the 
government  of  the  town  into  which  they  were  admitted. 
This  is  seen  in  the  agreements  made  by  later  comers  in 
Providence  to  abide  by  the  laws  and  orders  made  by  the 
major  vote  of  the  town ;  n  and  again  on  Rhode  Island  where 

1  R.  I.  Col  Rec.,  I,  28.  A  list  of  the  "  names  of  Such  as  have  paid 
all  their  purchase  money  and  have  quittances"  is  extant,  showing  the 
names  of  forty-two  persons  (Providence  Records,  II,  31). 

'R.  I.  Col.  Rec.,  I,  15;    Providence  Records,  I,  3. 

•Ibid.,  56. 

4  Providence  Records,  II,  29.  These  were  called  quarter-right  inhabi 
tants,  and  they  became  entitled  to  one-quarter  the  share  of  a  full 
proprietor  in  subsequent  land  divisions  (Arnold,  History  of  Rhode 
Island,  I,  121 ). 

6  R.  I.  Col.  Rec.,  I,  53. 

6  Ibid.,  I,  28,  84. 

'Providence  Records,  II,  i. 

*R.  /.  Col.  Rec.,  I,  72- 

4  Providence  Records,  II,  3. 

10  R.  I.  Col  Rec.,  I,  125. 

u  Providence  Records,  I,  i ;    II,  29,  oo. 


436     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

the  new  settlers  must  submit  themselves  to  the  "  government 
that  is  or  shall  be  established  according  to  the  word  of 
God."  1  In  Warwick  every  inhabitant  was  compelled  to  sign 
the  town  compact  and  agree  that  he  would  not  recognize  any 
other  jurisdiction  than  that  of  the  colony;  2  while  on  Rhode 
Island  an  inhabitant  or  freeman  endeavoring  to  bring  in  any 
other  power  was  to  be  treated  as  a  perjurer.3 

Thus  to  become  an  inhabitant  of  one  of  the  towns  a  person 
must  first  be  accepted  by  the  town;  in  most  cases  he  must 
make  a  pecuniary  payment;  he  was  required  to  submit  to 
the  town  government  and  promise  to  bring  in  no  other  au 
thority  ;  and  he  might  be  required  to  submit  to  various  other 
conditions  concerning  the  use  of  his  land.  Yet  even  admis 
sion  as  an  inhabitant  under  all  these  restrictions  did  not  nec 
essarily  make  a  man  a  freeman  or  voter  of  the  town  in  which 
he  was  resident.  The  early  records  give  abundant  evidence 
of  the  existence  of  two  distinct  classes  of  inhabitants,  com 
posed  of  those  who  were  admitted  as  freemen  and  those  who 
had  not  yet  received  that  privilege.4  As  time  went  on  the 
tendency  was  to  extend  the  freemanship  and  the  suffrage  to 
all  freeholders,  and  in  1658  the  town  meeting  of  Providence 
ordered  that  "  all  those  that  in  joy  land  in  ye  jurisdiction  of 
this  Towne  are  freemen." 5  While  thus  extending  the 
political  rights  of  freemen,  their  economic  rights  in  the  town 
lands  were  restricted.  In  the  early  years  we  find  the  state 
ment  that  the  undisposed  lands  belong  to  the  freemen,6  but 
soon  a  distinction  arose  here,  as  in  the  other  New  England 
colonies,  between  the  freemen  and  the  proprietors  of  the 
town  and  common  lands.  Admission  to  the  freemanship 
came  to  be  considered  merely  as  a  grant  of  political  power, 
while  land  matters  were  disposed  of  not  in  a  general  town 
meeting,  but  in  meetings  of  those  interested  in  the  town 
lands,  made  up  of  the  descendants  and  successors  of  the  orig- 

x#.  I.  Col.  Rec.,  I,  53,  91. 
2  Arnold,  History  of  Rhode  Island,  I,  216. 
8  R.  I.  Col.  Rec.,  I,  118. 

*  Providence  Records,  II,  29,  96,  112;;  R.  I.  Col.  Rec.,  I,  56,  58,  66, 
118,  124. 

5  Providence  Records,  II,  112;    see  also  ibid.,  96. 

6  R.  I.  Col  Rec.,  I,  83. 


The  Suffrage  in  Rhode  Island.  437 

inal  proprietors.1  The  homogeneous  economic  and  social 
character  of  the  early  settlements  gave  place  to  those  differ 
ences  of  wealth  and  occupation  which  led  to  the  factional 
quarrels  over  the  colonial  paper  currency. 

The  political  activities  in  these  towns  must  have  been  of  a 
very  narrow  nature.  The  earliest  form  was  the  town  meet 
ing,  or  the  "  Bodye,"  upon  which  attendance  was  compul 
sory  ;  2  but  at  a  very  early  date,  and  in  Portsmouth  and  New 
port  from  the  first,  the  practice  arose  of  relieving  the  town 
meeting  by  giving  details  of  administration  to  certain  elect 
ive  officers.3  Portsmouth  and  Newport  developed  an  admin 
istrative  system  earlier  than  did  Providence,  and  before  the 
settlers  reached  the  island,  a  "judge"  had  been  chosen;4 
while  within  a  few  months  three  elders,  a  constable  and  a 
sergeant  were  elected  by  the  town  meeting.5  A  similar  or 
ganization  was  established  at  Newport  when  many  of  the 
Portsmouth  (called  Pocosset  at  that  time)  settlers  moved 
to  the  southwestern  side  of  the  island.6  Providence  and 
Warwick  administered  their  affairs  by  irregularly  appointed 
arbitrators7  until  1640  in  Providence,  when  five  "  dis 
posers"  were  appointed  by  the  town ;  and  until  1647  in  War 
wick,  when  a  town  organization  was  established.8  The 
early  elections  in  the  towns  may  have  been  viva  voce,  but 
by  1639  the  elders  in  Portsmouth,  at  least,  were  chosen  by 
"  votes"  and  by  "  Providence ;"  9  and  at  Newport  a  free 
man  who  was  unable  to  attend  the  elections  could  send  a 

1  Arnold,   History   of   Rhode   Island,    I,   256;     Providence   Records, 
passim;    see  post,  469. 

2  R.  I.  Col.  Rec.,  I,  13,  15,  57,  81. 

3  Ibid.,  15,  30,  55.     The  earliest  officers  were  those  appointed  to  dis 
pose  of  the  town  lands. 

*  Ibid.,  52. 

*  Ibid.,  63,  64. 

6  Ibid.,  90,  93. 

7  Ibid.,  27  ;   Arnold,  History  of  R.  I.,  I,  176. 
*R.  I.  Col.  Rec.,  I,  129,  note. 

8  Ibid.,  64.     We  are  not  told  what  means  were  taken  to  ascertain  the 
will  of  Providence,  whether  it  were  by  lot  or  merely  the  principle  vox 
populi,  vox  dei. 


438     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

"  sealed  vote"  to  the  judge.1  In  all  these  elections  the  choice 
was  made  by  the  freemen  in  the  town  meeting.2 

When  the  town  isolation  gave  place  to  political  union, 
the  town  suffrage  mentioned  above  became  the  basis  for  the 
colonial  freemanship.  The  first  step  in  this  direction  came 
in  1640  by  the  union  of  Portsmouth  and  Newport.  These 
towns  were  settled  by  the  same  persons,  for  many  of  the 
proprietors  left  the  young  town  at  the  northern  end  of  the 
island  to  plant  a  settlement  at  Newport,  and  their  geographi 
cal  situation  could  not  but  force  some  kind  of  political  un 
derstanding  upon  the  two  towns.  After  a  short  independent 
existence  the  island  towns  formed  a  union  or  confederation 
which  provided  for  a  freemanship  of  the  island,  in  addition 
to  that  of  the  towns;3  it  established  a  general  form  of 
government  for  the  whole  island ; 4  and  it  permitted  each 
town  to  direct  its  local  affairs  by  its  own  courts  or  town 
meetings.5 

This  government,  with  such  remarkably  modern  political 
machinery,  was  not  less  radical  in  its  theory  of  popular 
authority.  The  general  court  of  the  island,  on  March  16, 
1640-41,  agreed  unanimously 

"  that  the  Government  which  this  Bodie  Politick  doth  attend  vnto  in 
this  Island,  and  the  Jurisdiction  thereof,  in  favour  of  our  Prince  is  a 
Democracie,  or  Popular  Government;  that  is  to  say,  It  is  in  the 
Powre  of  the  Body  of  Freemen  orderly  assembled,  or  the  major  part 


1 R.  I.  Col.  Rec.,  I,  98. 

2  Only  one  form  of  broader  suffrage  has  been  noted.  Newport  set 
an  example  in  her  first  year,  which  was  adopted  by  the  colony  and 
became  the  custom  for  a  number  of  years.  In  1639  the  town  gave  the 
militia,  or  "  Traine  Band,"  the  privilege  "  to  select  and  chuse  such 
persons,  one  or  more  from  among  themselves,  as  they  would  have  to 
be  officers  among  them ;  to  exercise  and  traine  them ;"  but  the  officers 
so  chosen  must  be  presented  to  the  magistrates  for  approval.  As  the 
soldiers  included  all  males  capable  of  bearing  arms,  later  specified  as 
between  the  ages  of  sixteen  and  sixty,  it  will  be  seen  that  this  militia 
suffrage  was  considerably  wider  than  the  town  freemanship  (R.  I.  Col. 
Rec.,  I,  93).  This  was  probably  drawn  from  Massachusetts  custom. 

*R.  I.  Col  Rec.,  I,  TOO. 

*  Ibid.,  100,  101. 

5  Ibid.,  106. 


The  Suffrage  in  Rhode  Island.  439 

of  them,  to  make  or  constitute  Just  Lawes,  by  which  they  will  be 
regulated,  and  to  depute  from  among  themselves  such  Ministers  as 
shall  see  them  faithfully  executed  between  Man  and  Man."  * 

The  short  time  during  which  this  confederation  on  the  island 
continued  is  no  indication  of  its  importance  in  the  formation 
of  the  colonial  government.  When  the  organization  under 
the  first  charter  was  completed,  its  makers  drew  largely  from 
the  forms  of  this  first  union.  They  adopted  its  general  and 
local  freemanship  idea,  its  division  of  governmental  powers, 
the  names  and  functions  of  many  of  its  officers,  the  proxy- 
elective  system,  and  even  the  popular  election  of  militia  offi 
cers.  Many  of  these  features  had,  of  course,  been  introduced 
into  the  island  by  the  emigrants  from  Massachusetts,  and 
then  from  Newport  and  Portsmouth  the  customs  at  last 
entered  into  the  general  colonial  organization. 

A  second  advance  towards  union  came  from  England  in 
the  form  of  the  charter  granted  on  March  14,  1643-4,  by  the 
Commissioners  of  Plantations.  The  early  town  organization 
and  the  first  union  had  been  purely  local  in  their  origin,  and 
had  received  no  authority  from  the  English  government, 
although  in  some  cases  an  allegiance  to  the  king  was  recog 
nized.2  The  charter  of  1644  granted  to  the  "  Inhabitants  of 
the  Towns  of  Providence,  Portsmouth,  and  Newport,  a  free 
and  absolute  Charter  of  Incorporation  to  be  known  by  the 
Name  of  the  Incorporation  of  Providence  Plantations,  in  the 
Narraganset  Bay,  in  New  England."  3  It  gave  them  "  full 
Power  and  Authority  to  rule  themselves,  and  such  others  as 
shall  hereafter  inhabit  within  any  Part  of  the  said  Tract 
of  land,  by  such  a  Form  of  Civil  Government,  as  by  volun 
tary  consent  of  all,  or  the  greater  Part  of  them,  they  shall 
find  most  suitable  to  their  Estate  and  Condition."  They 
were  impowered  to  make  civil  laws  and  constitutions,  and 
choose  or  displace  officers  of  justice;  provided  that  such 
regulations  for  civil  government  should  be  conformable  to 

1 R.  L  Col.  Rec.,  I,  112.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  this  resolution  ante 
dated  the  commonwealth  movement  in  England,  and  even  contained 
a  clause  saving  the  authority  of  the  king. 

*R.  I.  Col.  Rec.,  I,  70,  112. 

5  Ibid.,  143-146. 


440     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

the  laws  of  England  "  so  far  as  the  nature  and  constitution 
of  the  place  will  admit." 

Three  years  after  the  date  of  this  charter,  a  general  court 
of  election  was  held  at  Portsmouth,  at  which  a  provincial 
organization  was  erected  and  a  code  of  laws  adopted.  The 
new  government,  shared  in  by  Warwick  as  well  as  by  the 
three  earlier  towns,  was  partly  representative  and  partly 
direct.  The  Rhode  Island  freemen,  meeting  May  19-21, 
1647,  agreed  that  their  form  of  government  was  "  DEMO- 
CRATICALL;  that  is  to  say,  a  Government  held  by  ye 
free  and  voluntarie  consent  of  all,  or  the  greater  parte  of 
the  free  Inhabitants."  1  There  was  to  be  a  general  assembly 
of  all  the  freemen  held  annually,  not  only  for  the  election  of 
officers,  but  also  for  the  enactment  of  laws.2  In  addition  to 
this  there  were  frequent  meetings  of  a  General  Court  com 
posed  of  six  committeemen  appointed  for  each  town ; 3  and 
at  least  in  one  case  other  freemen,  whose  "  helpe  is  desired," 
were  permitted  to  tarry  if  they  would.4  An  inspection  of 
certain  of  the  acts  of  this  assembly  and  the  subsequent  ex 
perience  under  them,  down  to  1663,  may  be  of  value  to  an 
understanding  of  the  suffrage  in  the  colony.  These  features 
fall  into  three  classes ;  first,  the  admission  of  freemen,  or  the 
manner  of  granting  the  suffrage ;  second,  the  proxy  system, 
or  the  manner  in  which  the  suffrage  was  exercised;  third, 
the  subjects  upon  which  popular  suffrage  was  exercised,  in 
cluding  the  election  of  general  and  town  officers,  the  making 
of  laws  in  general  assembly,  and  the  popular  initiative  and 
referendum  of  legislative  topics. 

The  path  to  the  provincial  suffrage  lay  through  the  free- 
manship  of  the  towns ;  he  who  had  been  accepted  as  an  in 
habitant  of  one  of  the  towns  and  admitted  as  one  of  its  free 
men  could  hope,  as  a  matter  of  course,  to  be  granted  the 
colonial  freemanship.  The  charter  of  1644,  unlike  that  of 
1663,  did  not  use  the  word  freemen,  but  simply  incorporated 
the  "  inhabitants"  of  the  three  towns.  Yet  the  practice  was 
to  require  a  formal  vote  and  admission  to  the  town  and 

1R.  I.  Col.  Rec.,  I,  156. 

3    T  L.  '  J 


*  Ibid.,  149,  150,  191. 

8  Ibid.,  149;   also  passim  after  p.  228. 

*  Ibid.,  209. 


The  Suffrage  in  Rhode  Island.  441 

then  a  similar  entrance  into  the  colonial  freemanship.1  The 
acceptance  of  freemen  during  this  period  sometimes  took 
place  in  the  annual  general  assembly,  or  more  often,  in  the 
representative  court ; 2  and  it  is  noteworthy  that  no  instance 
of  refusal  of  the  freemanship  to  those  proposed  for  the  fran 
chise  has  been  found  for  these  nineteen  years.  Usually,  the 
candidates  were  proposed  and  accepted  by  name;  at  other 
times  there  were  wholesale  admissions  of  freemen.  Thus 
after  the  reunion  of  the  four  towns  in  1654  following 
Coddington's  abortive  attempt  to  establish  an  independent 
government  on  the  island,  the  commissioners  of  the  four 
towns  ordered  "  that  all  those  inhabitants  in  this  Collonie 
that  have  been  received  freemen  to  act  in  any  Towne  or 
Collonie  since  Mr.  Coddington's  commission  was  exhibited, 
shall  be  owned  freemen  of  ye  Collonie." 3  In  1656  the 
settlers  at  Patuxett  were  in  a  body  to  "  be  lovingly  enter 
tained  as  freemen  of  this  Collony,  to  have  theire  free  voates 
in  makinge  of  lawes,  choosinge  of  officers  in  Towne  and 
Collony,  with  the  enjoyment  of  all  priviledges  belonginge  to 
freemen  of  this  jurisdiction."  4  The  interval  between  admis 
sion  to  the  town  franchise  and  the  grant  of  the  colonial  free 
manship  might  be  very  short.  We  have  evidence  of  this  in 
the  case  of  Providence  in  1658.  On  May  I5th,  the  town 
meeting  voted  that  all  freeholders  were  to  be  accounted  free 
men  of  the  town;  5  and  on  May  i8th,  twenty-nine  freemen 
of  Providence  were  proposed  and  admitted  freemen  of  the 
colony,6  who,  it  may  be  fairly  supposed,  were  town  freemen 
coming  in  under  the  new  town  regulation. 

Aside  from  the  prerequisite  of  town  freemanship,  few 
other  qualifications  appear  to  have  been  imposed  upon  the 
candidate  for  colonial  freedom.  We  learn  that  in  the  first 

1R.  I.  Col  Rec.,  I,  263,  280,  299-302,  340,  387,  426.  The  records 
usually  show  that  the  candidate  for  the  freemanship  came  from  a 
particular  town,  and  in  only  a  few  cases  is  the  name  of  the  town 
lacking  (ibid.,  282,  303,  356). 

2  See  above  references. 

3  R.  I.  Col.  Rec.,  I,  280. 
*  Ibid.,  339,  340. 

5  Providence  Records,  II,  112. 
*R.  I.  Col.  Rec.,  I,  387- 


442     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

meeting  in  1647  it  was  agreed  that  all  should  "  set  their 
hands  to  an  engagement  to  the  Charter;"  *  and  it  is  proba 
ble  that  those  subsequently  admitted  were  required  to  sub 
scribe  to  a  similar  agreement.  During  the  Puritan  Com 
monwealth  period,  the  inhabitants  of  Rhode  Island,  as  in  the 
other  colonies,  were  individually  required  to  submit  to  the 
new  "  State  of  England"  and  render  obedience  to  it,  under 
the  penalty  of  forfeiting  the  benefit  accruing  under  any  law 
of  the  colony,  —  which  presumably  meant  disfranchisement.2 
Beyond  these  points,  the  towns  enjoyed  the  right  to  fix  the 
qualifications  of  town  freemen,  and  consequently  in  an  in 
direct  manner,  of  the  colonial  freemen  as  well.  Many  years 
were  to  pass  before  any  general  law  established  their  quali 
fications. 

At  the  meeting  in  May,  1647,  f°r  the  election  of  officers 
and  enactment  of  laws  under  the  charter  of  1644,  the  free 
men  of  the  colony  were  present  in  person,  the  records  stating 
that  the  "  major  parte  of  the  Colonie  was  present."  3  Yet 
even  this  meeting  lost  its  pure  democratic  character  before 
the  three  days  of  its  session  had  passed.  It  was  agreed  that 
if  forty  or  more  persons  remained  at  the  meeting,  they  should 
have  the  authority  of  the  whole  body  ;  4  and  later  it  was 
ordered  that  "  if  any  do  depart,  he  shall  leave  his  vote  be 
hind  him,  that  his  power  remain,  though  his  person  be 
absent."  5  Thus  in  the  first  assembly,  the  principle  of  proxy 
voting  was  recognized;  and  by  legislation  it  was  perma 
nently  established.  The  assembly  made  provision  for  an 
annual  election  of  officers  in  a  general  assembly  of  the  free 
men  ;  but  "  forasmuch  as  many  may  be  necessarily  detained, 
that  they  cannot  come  to  the  General  Court  of  Election,  that 
then  they  shall  send  their  votes  sealed  up  unto  the  said  Court, 
which  shall  be  as  effective  as  their  personal  appearance."  6 
Nothing  further  was  said  concerning  the  method  of  return 
ing  the  individual  votes,  but  corruption  inevitably  crept  into 

1  R.  I.  Col.  Rec.,  I,  147. 
•Ibid.,  305. 

3  Ibid.,  147. 

4  Ibid. 


•  Ibid.,  149. 


The  Suffrage  in  Rhode  Island.  443 

such  a  lax  system.  Only  two  years  later  it  was  found  neces 
sary  to  appoint  a  special  committee  to  examine  some  of  the 
votes,  and  the  assembly  itself  passed  an  order  to  prevent 
irregularities  in  the  future  by  directing  that  "  none  shall 
bringe  any  voates  but  such  as  they  receive  from  the  voaters 
hands."  1  The  proxy  system  here  established  was  without 
doubt  drawn  from  the  custom  of  the  town  of  Newport,2  and, 
with  some  modifications  it  lasted  throughout  the  colonial 
history  of  Rhode  Island.  The  freeman  was  privileged  either 
to  attend  the  general  court  of  elections  in  person,  or  to  send 
his  ballot  in  some  prescribed  manner  to  the  meeting.  Per 
sonal  attendance  was  forbidden  after  1760,  but  through  the 
whole  colonial  period  the  written  paper  ballots  were  col 
lected  in  the  several  towns  and  sent  to  the  court  of  election 
to  be  examined  and  counted.3  In  a  similar  manner  the 
voter's  privilege  to  initiate  legislation,  or  to  pass  upon  that 
which  had  been  adopted  by  the  representative  court  ,of  assist 
ants,  was  exercised  by  means  of  individual  ballots  sent  up 
to  the  general  officers  to  be  counted. 

The  Rhode  Island  freeman  during  the  period  1647-1663 
possessed  a  wider  field  in  which  to  exercise  his  suffrage 
powers  than  did  the  voter  of  any  other  colony  at  that  time. 
The  freemen  of  the  colony  could  attend  in  person  or  send 
their  ballots  to  the  annual  election  of  colonial  officers;  the 
freemen  of  the  respective  towns  could  elect  their  town 
officers 4  and  their  commissioners  to  the  colony  courts ; 5 
while  all  the  soldiers  of  the  militia  companies  could  vote 
in  elections  for  military  officers.6  In  the  pure  democratic 
legislative  assembly  the  freeman  had  a  voice  in  the  passage 

*R.  I.  Col.  Rec.,  I,  217. 

1  The  colonial  law  of  1647  contains  part  of  the  language  of  an  order 
of  Newport  of  January  29,  1639-40,  according  to  which  the  elections 
were  to  be  held  annually  by  the  freemen,  but  "  such  as  shall  be  neces 
sarily  detained  to  send  in  their  votes,  sealed  up  to  the  Judge"  (R.  L 
Col  Rec.,  I,  98). 

3  See  post,  463-467. 

4  R.  L  Col.  Rec.,  I,  150,  151,  215. 

5  Ibid.,  147,  209,  221,  228,  229,  236,  317. 

8  This  feature,  like  the  proxy  voting,  is  also  to  be  found  in  the  early 
organization  upon  Rhode  Island,  R.  I.  Col  Rec.,  I,  93,  115,  117,  120,  153. 


The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

of  all  laws;  but  this  power  did  not  last  long,  and  the  con 
venient  representative  assembly  composed  of  six  commis 
sioners  from  each  town  was  permitted  to  carry  on  the  work 
of  legislation,  until  in  1651,  it  was  declared  "the  lawe 
makinge  Assemblie"  of  the  colony.1  But  although  the  free 
man  lost  his  right  to  attend  the  legislative  body,  he  still  pos 
sessed  the  power  of  initiating  or  disallowing  legislation. 
One  of  the  orders  of  the  assembly  of  1647  permitted  the  dis 
cussion  of  general  matters  in  any  town  meeting,  and  pro 
vided  that  if  any  action  was  there  determined  upon,  the 
town  clerk  should  certify  the  matter  to  the  other  three  towns. 
The  subject  was  then  to  be  "  agitated"  in  the  other  towns, 
and  voted  upon;  then  the  representative  committeemen  of 
the  towns  were  to  meet,  and  "  finding  the  Major  parte  of  the 
Colonie  concurring  in  the  case,  it  shall  stand  for  a  Law 
till  the  next  Generall  Assembly  of  all  the  people,  then  and 
there  to  be  considered,  whether  any  longer  to  stand  yea 
or  no."  2 

But  more  valuable  than  the  initiative  was  the  popular 
referendum  which  also  dates  from  1647.  Another  order  of 
that  year  permitted  (or  perhaps  compelled)  the  general 
court  of  committeemen  to  propose  measures  to  the  towns. 
The  towns  were  then  to  discuss  the  subjects  and  "  the 
votes  shall  be  collected  and  sealed  up,"  and  sent  to  the  gen 
eral  recorder;  and  "  if  major  voice  determine  the  case,"  the 
measure  should  become  a  law  until  the  next  meeting  of  the 
general  assembly  of  the  people.3  The  referendum  became 
the  subject  of  frequent  legislation  after  1647,  evidently  a 
result  of  attempts  to  put  it  into  practice.  In  1650*  the 
representative  assembly  was  required  to  submit  all  its  laws 

1 R.  I.  Col.  Rec.,  I,  236.  The  members  of  these  "  general  courts" 
were  elected  for  each  occasion,  and  not  for  a  stated  time ;  but  by  an 
order  of  1655  they  were  to  stand  for  a  year  unless  the  towns  chose  to 
send  others  (ibid.,  317).  The  frequent  election  and  meeting  of  the 
commissioners  seemed  "  to  be  some  burden  on  the  people,"  and  in  1658 
they  were  to  meet  but  once  a  year  unless  specially  called  by  the  presi 
dent  and  assistants  (ibid.,  400). 

1  R.  I.  Col.  Rec.,  I,  149. 

3  Ibid. 

4  Ibid.,  229. 


The  Suffrage  in  Rhode  Island.  445 

to  the  several  towns  within  six  days  after  its  adjournment, 
and  within  the  next  three  days  the  town  was  to  be  called 
together  to  consider  the  laws. 

"  And  if  any  freeman  mislike  any  law  then  made,  they  shall  then 
send  their  votes  with  their  names  fixed  thereto  vnto  the  Generall 
Recorder  within  tenn  dayes  after  the  reading  of  thoss  lawes  and  no 
longer.  And  if  itt  appeare  that  the  major  vote  within  that  time  pre 
fixed  shall  come  in  and  declare  itt  to  be  a  nullity,  then  shall  the  Re 
corder  signifie  it  to  ye  President,  and  the  President  shall  forthwith 
signifie  to  ye  Townes  that  such  or  such  lawes  is  a  null,  and  the  silence 
to  the  rest  shall  be  taken  for  approbation  and  confirmation  of  the  lawes 
made." 

In  1658  we  are  told  that  "it  is  conceived  a  wholesome 
liberty  for  the  whole  or  major  parte  of  the  free  inhabitants 
of  this  collony  orderly  to  consider  of  the  lawes  made  by  the 
Commissioners'  Courts,  and  upon  fmdinge  discommodity  in 
any  law  made  by  the  said  court,  then  orderly  to  shew  their 
dislike  and  soe  to  invalid  such  a  law."  J 

No  absolute  evidence  has  been  found  in  the  records  to 
show  that  the  initiative  and  the  referendum  were  ever  exer 
cised,  and  it  is  unlikely  that  the  former  was  adopted.  The 
frequent  legislation  upon  the  subject  of  the  referendum, 
however,  seems  to  point  to  considerable  popular  interest  in 
the  matter,  if  not  to  an  actual  fact  of  political  organization ;  2 
and  in  Providence,  at  least,  the  records  show  that  at  this 
time,  and  for  many  years  thereafter,  the  laws  of  each  assem 
bly  were  read  in  the  town  meeting.3  There  is  no  record  of 
the  popular  veto  of  a  legislative  act.  Yet  the  ideal,  even  if 
not  carried  into  practice,  shows  a  strength  of  democratic 
thought  which  is  remarkable. 

1 R.  I.  Col.  Rec.,  I,  401.  The  determination  of  such  invalidity  was 
to  be  made  by  a  majority  of  each  town  instead  of  a  majority  of  the 
colony.  But  two  years  later,  since  the  privileges  of  the  people  had  not 
been  "  clearly  evinced,"  it  was  enacted  that  the  disallowance  of  laws 
should  take  place  upon  the  vote  of  a  majority  of  the  free  inhabitants 
of  the  colony,  "  although  any  one  towne  or  other  should  be  wholly 
silent  therein"  (ibid.,  429). 

2  A  detailed  study  of  the  town  records  might  throw  some  light  upon 
this  point,  but  the  writer  has  not  had  opportunity  to  do  this. 

3  Providence  Records,  III,  25,  37,  etc. 


446     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  tlu  English  Colonies. 

II.   Under  the  Charter  of  1663. 

After  the  restoration  of  the  English  monarchy,  the  Rhode 
Island  assembly  appointed  an  agent  in  England  to  see  that 
their  privileges,  liberties  and  boundaries  were  preserved  in 
tact.1  John  Clarke,  the  agent,  shortly  afterwards  presented 
a  most  humble  and  supplicatory  letter  to  the  king,  praying 
for  a  confirmation  of  the  charter  privileges  of  the  colony.2 
Accordingly,  on  July  8,  1663,  a  new  charter  was  issued 
which  erected  a  corporate  political  company,  composed  of 
freemen.3  Twenty-seven  named  persons  and  "  all  such 

!;  others  as  now  are,  or  hereafter  shall  bee  admitted  and  made 
ffree  of  the  company  and  societie  of  our  collonie  of  Provi- 

>  dence  Plantations  in  the  Narragansett  Bay,  in  New-Eng 
land,  shall  bee,  from  tyme  to  tyme,  and  forever  hereafter,  a 
bodie  corporate  and  politique,  in  ffact  and  name,  by  the 
name  of  the  Governor  and  Company  of  the  English  Collonie 
of  Rhode-Island  and  Providence  Plantations,  in  New-Eng 
land,  in  America."  The  general  officers  of  the  company 
were  to  be  elected  annually,  although  the  first  incumbents 
were  named  in  the  charter.  An  assembly  composed  of  six 
deputies  from  Ne\vport,  four  each  from  Providence,  Ports 
mouth,  and  Warwick,  and  two  for  every  other  town,  was  to 
meet  twice  a  year.  Remarkably  broad  powers  were  given 
to  this  assembly,  but  we  need  note  here  only  the  clause  for 
the  admission  of  freemen.  By  it  the  assembly  could  "  choose, 
nominate,  and  apoynt,  such  and  soe  manye  other  persons  as 
they  shall  thinke  ffitt,  and  shall  be  willing  to  accept  the  same, 
to  bee  ffree  of  the  sayd  Company  and  body  politique."  Offi 
cers  should  be  chosen  annually  by  the  general  court  or  assem 
bly,  "  by  such  greater  part  of  the  sayd  Company,  for  the 
tyme  beinge,  as  shall  bee  then  and  there  present." 

The  charter  of  1663  stated  in  more  definite  terms  than 
those  of  the  charter  of  1644  the  form  of  incorporation  of 
the  colony,  and  it  placed  additional  emphasis  upon  the  free- 
manship  idea ;  but  in  practice  it  introduced  very  few  changes 
into  the  constitution  of  the  colony.  Since  the  charter  vested 

1 R.  I.  Col.  Rec.,  I,  433-435- 

*Ibid.,  485-491.  3  Ibid.,  II,  3-21. 


The  Suffrage  in  Rhode  Island.  447 

legislative  power  in  the  assembly,  it  was  held  that  the  power 
of  the  people  to  annul  laws  by  vote  in  town  meetings  was 
inconsistent  with  the  charter ; 1  and  some  confusion  was 
caused  by  the  ambiguous  terms  of  the  charter  in  describing 
elections.  It  was  uncertain  whether  the  elections  were  to 
be  by  the  representative  assembly,  or  by  an  assembly  of  the 
freemen;  and  if  the  latter,  there  were  doubts  whether  proxy 
votes  could  be  received.2  As  the  charter  interrupted  but 
slightly  the  customs  and  laws  of  the  colony,  we  can  proceed 
at  once  to  consider  the  development  of  the  suffrage  during 
the  next  one  hundred  years  under  the  charter.  For  this  pur 
pose,  it  will  be  best  to  treat,  first,  of  the  qualifications  of 
electors  in  the  colony  elections;  secondly,  the  proxy  system 
or  method  of  balloting  and  a  few  other  facts  concerning 
elections;  and  thirdly,  other  elections  than  those  for  colony 
officers. 

Although  the  new  charter  gave  over  to  the  assembly  the 
whole  subject  of  admission  of  freemen,  yet  110  change  was 
made  in  the  custom  which  had  previously  existed.  The 
applicant  for  colonial  freedom  must  first  have  been  accepted 
as  a  freeman  of  some  town  before  he  was  qualified  for  the 
higher  duties.  After  gaining  the  town  freedom,  the  free 
man's  name  was  usually  proposed  to  the  general  assembly 
by  the  town  clerk,3  although  sometimes  the  applicant  him 
self  petitioned  for  the  colonial  franchise.4  There  are  very 
few  instances  in  which  the  granting  of  freedom  was  refused 
or  even  postponed  after  the  presentation  of  names  to  the 
assembly.5  It  was  very  unusual  for  the  assembly  to  inquire 
into  the  returns  from  the  towns;  apparently,  if  a  man  was 
properly  admitted  into  a  town,  he  could,  if  he  desired,  ob 
tain  the  colonial  freedom  as  well.  So  strong  was  the  custom 
in  this  particular  that  the  assembly,  when  it  came  to  impose 
qualifications  upon  the  freemanship,  found  it  necessary  to 

1  R.  I.  Col.  Rec.,  II,  27. 

2  Ibid.,  28,  29,  39,  62. 

3  Ibid.,  147,  185. 

4  Ibid.,  1 10,  147. 

6  The  only  cases  noticed  in  scores  of  references  to  the  subject  of 
admission  of  freemen  will  be  found  in  R,  I.  Col.  Rec.,  II,  59,  185,  238, 
337- 


448     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

place  the  restrictions  not  simply  upon  the  freemen  of  the 
colony,  but  also  upon  the  town  freemen. 

Before  1663  there  was  practically  no  general  qualification 
for  the  freemanship,  since  the  towns  admitted  or  refused  to 
admit  what  persons  they  would.  After  the  new  charter, 
however,  the  admission  of  freemen  in  towns  and  colony  be 
came  the  subject  of  frequent  legislation.  The  first  general 
qualification  was  imposed  as  a  result  of  the  demands  of  the 
English  government.  The  royal  commissioners  who  made 
so  much  trouble  for  themselves  and  the  colonists  in  Con 
necticut  and  Massachusetts  also  turned  their  investigations 
upon  Rhode  Island.  Carr  and  Carter,  two  of  the  commis 
sioners,  made  known  the  king's  desires  to  Rhode  Island. 
The  requirements  were  the  same  as  those  discussed  more 
fully  under  the  other  two  colonies;  all  inhabiting  house 
holders  were  to  take  an  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  king ;  and 
"  all  men  of  competante  estates  and  of  civill  conversation, 
who  acknowledge  and  are  obediante  to  the  civill  magistrate, 
i  though  of  differing  judgements"  should  be  admitted  as  free 
men  and  have  liberty  to  elect  or  be  elected  to  office.1  The 
assembly  in  complying  with  these  requirements  necessarily 
L  imposed  new  restrictions  upon  the  suffrage.  All  present 
S  freemen,  and  all  admitted  in  the  future,  were  compelled  to 
Stake  an  engagement  of  allegiance  to  the  king  and  of  obedi- 
(ence  to  the  laws  and  charter  of  the  colony,2  and  those  re 
fusing  were  to  forfeit  the  suffrage  franchise  as  well  as  all 
the  other  rights  of  freemen.  The  assembly  accepted  as 
readily  the  other  proposed  qualifications  for  the  suffrage 

*R.  L  Col.  Rec.,  II,  no. 

2 Ibid.,  112.  The  oath  is  as  follows:  "You,  A.  B.,  sollemly  and  sin- 
cearly  engage  true  and  faithfull  aleagiance  vnto  his  Majestye  Charles 
the  Second,  King  of  England,  his  heires  and  successors,  to  beare  and 
due  obediance  vnto  the  laws  established,  from  time  to  time  in  this 
jurisdiction  to  yeald  vnto  the  vtmost  of  your  power,  according  to  the 
previlidge  by  his  said  Majesty  granted,  in  religioues  and  civill  con- 
cearnments  to  this  Collony  in  the  Charter;  which  said  engagement 
you  make  vnder  the  perrill  and  penalty  of  perjury."  The  same  oath 
was  to  be  taken  by  all  men  over  eighteen  years  of  age  (ibid.,  113). 
See  also  Providence  Records,  III,  64,  101,  199;  IV,  55. 


The  Suffrage  in  Rhode  Island.  449 

and  embodied  them  in  the  following  order,1  that  those 
persons  who 

"  take  the  aforesaid  engagement  and  are  of  competent  estates,  civill 
conversation,  and  obediant  to  the  civill  magistrate,  shall  be  admitted 
freemen  of  this  Collony  vpon  their  exprese  desire  therein  declared  to 
the  General  Assembly,  either  by  themselves  with  sufficient  testimony 
of  their  fittnes  and  qualificationes  as  shall  by  the  Assembly  be  deemed 
satisfactory;  or  if  by  the  chiefe  officer  of  the  towne  or  townes  where 
they  live,  they  be  proposed  and  declared  as  aforesaid;  and  that  none 
shall  have  admission  to  vote  for  publicke  officers,  or  deputyes,  or  enjoy 
any  priviledge  of  freemen  till  admitted  by  the  Assembly  as  aforesaid, 
and  their  names  recorded  in  the  gennerall  records  of  this  Collony." 

This  full  compliance  of  the  Rhode  Island  authorities  was 
very  acceptable  to  the  royal  commissioners,  who  write  to 
England  in  favorable  terms  concerning  the  colony,  and  relate 
how  "  they  admitt  all  to  be  freemen  who  desire  it."  2  The 
new  qualification  does  not  appear  to  have  made  the  admission 
of  freemen  any  easier,  for  during  the  next  few  years  rela 
tively  few  new  freemen  were  admitted.  On  the  contrary,  it 
must  temporarily  have  excluded  many  from  voting,  as  some 
refused  to  take  the  form  of  allegiance  required,  and  for 
several  years  there  was  a  class  of  non-jurors  in  Providence 
who  interfered  in  elections  and  caused  heated  contests.3 

The  close  relationship  between  the  freedom  of  the  towns 
and  that  of  the  colony  is  clearly  shown  in  an  act  of  i666.4 
This  act  impowered  the  town  meetings  "  to  make  Such  men 
freemen  of  their  Towns  as  they  Judge  may  be  meet  &  may 
be  seruiceable  to  serve  in  ye  Towns  in  Town  Offices."  After 
admission  by  the  towns,  the  names  of  all  such  persons  were 
to  be  presented  to  the  assembly,  and  if  they  "  pass  by  vote  to 

1R.  I.  Col.  Rec.,  II,  113. 
'Ibid.,  127. 

3  Ibid.,  141,  142,  200,  288-290,  292,  293;    Providence  Records,  III,  105, 
149,  150. 

4  Lazvs   and   Acts   of  Her  Majesties   Colony   of  Rhode  Island   and 
Providence   Plantations  made   from   the  First  Settlement  in   1636   to 
1705,  S.  S.  and  B.  Rider,  Providence,  1896,  35,  36.     The  phraseology 
but  not  the  sense  was  somewhat  changed  in  the  code  of  1730,  Acts  and 
Laws  of  Rhode  Island,  1730,  16. 

29 


450     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

allow  them  freemen  of  ye  Colony  then  Shall  they  have  their 
Vots  of  Electing  Gener11  Officers."  It  thus  came  to  be  the 
custom  for  the  town  clerks  to  send  lists  of  the  new  town 
freemen  to  the  assembly  at  the  time  of  the  general  election  in 
May.  As  early  as  1667  the  assembly  was  compelled  to 
order  that  no  person  should  be  admitted  to  the  freedom  of 
the  corporation  on  election  day,1  and  thereafter  the  admis 
sions  of  freemen  nearly  always  took  place  at  an  assembly 
session  or  preparatory  meeting  held  the  day  before  the 
election.2 

Both  the  charter  of  1663  and  the  assembly's  order  of  1665 
in  response  to  the  English  demands,  had  said  that  the  free 
dom  of  the  colony  might  be  given  to  those  who  desire  it,  but 
they  had  not  implied  that  the  colony  could  compel  persons  to 
accept  the  honor.  Yet  in  1670  the  assembly  impowered  the 
towns  to  admit  such  freemen  as  they  "  shall  judge  capable 
to  doe  publicke  service  in  bearing  office  therein;  although 
such  person  or  persones  desire  not  to  be  made  a  freeman  or 
freemen." 3  But  in  establishing  compulsory  freemanship 
Rhode  Island  was  not  acting  without  precedent.  Massachu 
setts  and  Maryland  had  adopted  somewhat  similar  orders, 
and  throughout  all  of  the  colonies  office-holding  was  com 
pulsory  ;  while  frequently  persons  properly  qualified  to  vote 
were  fined  if  they  did  not  perform  that  duty.  Thus  the  com 
pulsory  freemanship  of  Rhode  Island,  although  different  in 
name,  was  practically  equivalent  to  the  compulsory  voting 
and  office-holding  in  other  colonies. 

From  this  time  down  to  1719  there  were  no  further  re 
strictions  on  the  suffrage.  During  all  this  period  the  towns 
could  choose  any  of  their  inhabitants  as  freemen  who  pos 
sessed  "  competent  estates"  and  were  of  "  civil  conversation." 

1  R.  I.  Col  Rec.,  II,  190. 

*  Ibid.,  Ill,  311.  In  subsequent  years  this  preparatory  meeting  was 
given  up  almost  entirely  to  the  acceptance  of  freemen  and  the 
appointment  of  committees  to  manage  the  election  on  the  following 
day ;  and  on  one  occasion  it  is  called  an  "  Assembly  for  making 
freemen." 

8  Ibid.,  II,  357.  This  is  similar  to  the  order  in  Providence  in  1656, 
that  all  inhabitants,  although  not  freemen,  should  be  liable  to  be  chosen 
for  town  service  (Providence  Records,  II,  96). 


The  Suffrage  in  Rhode  Island. 


But  in  1719  a  religious  qualification  was  established.  In 
the  code  of  laws  drawn  up  in  that  year  occur  these  words : 

"  and  that  all  men  professing  Christianity  and  of  competent  estates 
and  of  civil  conversation  who  acknowledge  and  are  obedient  to  the 
civil  magistrate  though  of  different  judgments  in  Religious  Affairs 
(Roman  Catholicks  only  excepted)  shall  be  admitted  Freemen  and 
shall  have  liberty  to  choose  and  be  chosen  Officers  in  the  Colony  both 
military  and  civil." 

The  presence  of  the  phrase,  "  Roman  Catholicks  only  ex 
cepted,"  has  been  difficult  to  explain,  but  Mr.  S.  S.  Rider, 
in  his  researches,  has  placed  the  matter  beyond  a  doubt.  It 
is  now  clear  that  this  clause  was  inserted  into  the  midst  of  an 
earlier  law  by  some  member  of  the  revisory  committee  of 
1719.  Neither  the  clause  nor  the  law  is  to  be  found  in  the 
early  legislation,  although  a  marginal  note  in  the  code  of 
1719  and  the  following  ones  attributes  the  law  to  the  year 
1663.  Mr.  Rider  has  shown  that  great  carelessness  existed 
in  ascribing  the  dates  to  the  laws  in  the  digests ;  and  more 
conclusively  still,  it  is  found  that  the  clause  excluding  the 
Catholics  does  not  appear  in  the  manuscript  digest  of  1705. 
There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  clause  in  question  was  used 
for  the  first  time  in  1719  instead  of  1663  as  the  digest  states; 
and  it  seems  probable  that  it  was  added  by  the  committee  in 
order  to  bring  the  colonial  laws  into  supposed  conformity  to 
the  English  statutes.1  The  digest  of  1719  was  never  ac 
cepted  by  the  legislature,  and  hence  the  work  of  the  com 
mittee  has  been  held  to  have  no  more  value  than  the  work 
of  any  private  persons.  But  in  1730  the  assembly  accepted 
as  the  law  of  the  colony  a  new  digest  in  which  the  clause 
against  Catholics  is  retained;  and  from  that  time  through 
out  the  colonial  period  it  was  the  law  of  the  colony.  The 
Rhode  Island  historians  have  succeeded  in  removing  the 
responsibility  for  this  religious  qualification  from  the  early 

1  The  English  statutes  7  and  8  Wm.  3,  ch.  27  and  i  Geo.  i,  Statute  2, 
ch.  13,  while  not  excluding  all  Catholics  as  such  from  the  suffrage,  yet 
provided  that  no  person  could  vote  for  members  of  Parliament  who 
upon  the  request  of  any  candidate  refused  to  take  the  oaths  or  affirma 
tions  of  allegiance,  supremacy,  and  the  abjuration.  This  would  lead 
to  a  practical  disfranchisement  of  many,  if  not  all,  Roman  Catholics. 


•-T 


I7H 


452     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

settlers  of  the  colony,  and  placing  it  upon  their  successors, 
who,  under  English  influence,  introduced  a  political  perse 
cution  quite  foreign  to  the  policy  of  the  founders.1  It  must 
be  admitted,  however,  that  there  were  very  few  Roman 
Catholics  in  the  colony  and  the  law  was  practically  a  dead 
letter,  until  in  1783,  when  the  large  number  of  French  set 
tlers  remaining  after  the  French  occupation  of  Newport, 
caused  its  repeal.2 

The  law  as  stated  in  the  digests  excluded  not  only  Roman 
Catholics,  but  all  non-Christians  as  well,  and  would  thus 
have  barred  out  Hebrews.  There  were  some  Jews  in  the 
colony  as  early  as  i684,3  and  in  1763  they  erected  a  syna 
gogue  in  Newport.4  A  number  of  Jews  were  naturalized, 
and  despite  the  laws  apparently  admitted  to  the  freeman- 
ship;  but  in  1762  the  superior  court  refused  that  privilege 
to  two  Hebrews  on  the  ground  that  "  it  appears  that  the 
free  and  quiet  enjoyment  of  the  Christian  religion  and  a 
desire  of  propagating  the  same  were  the  principal  views 
with  which  this  colony  was  settled,  and  by  a  law  made  and 
passed  in  the  year  i663,5  no  person  who  does  not  profess 
the  Christian  religion  can  be  admitted  free  of  this  colony/'  6 
The  Rhode  Island  historian,  Arnold,  attributes  this  decision 
to  the  party  strife  then  existing  between  the  governor  and 
the  chief- justice;  and  if  this  be  true,  it  is  interesting  to 
note  that  it  was  the  same  cause  as  that  which  led  the  New 
York  assembly  to  disfranchise  the  Jews  in  1738. 

1  For  the  proof  of  the  opinions  above  stated,  see  S.  S.  Rider's  intro 
ductions  to  his  editions  of  the  codes  of  1705  and  1719;  and  An  Inquiry 
Concerning  the  Origin  of  the  Clause  in  the  Laws  of  Rhode  Island 
(1719-1783)  Disfranchising  Roman  Catholics,  by  the  same  author,  in 
Rhode  Island  Historical  Tracts,  Second  Series,  No.  I ;  also  Walsh's 
Appeal,  427-435 ;  Arnold,  History  of  Rhode  Island,  II,  490-497. 

1  Arnold,  Hist,  of  R.  L,  II,  497. 

3  Ibid.,  I,  478.  *Ibid.,  II,  247. 

5  This  reference  by  a  court  shows  how  the  errors  of  the  digest 
makers  were  accepted  without  question. 

'Arnold,  Hist,  of  R.  I.,  II,  494,  note.  The  doctrine  above  stated 
ignores  the  broad  toleration  advocated  by  Roger  Williams,  who  seems 
to  have  believed  in  religious  liberty  for  "  papists  and  protestants,  Jews 
and  Turks"  (Narragansett  Club  Publications,  VI,  278). 


The  Suffrage  in  Rhode  Island.  453 

Turning  from  these  religious  restrictions  which  remained 
upon  the  law  books  from  1719  until  1783,  we  notice  a  great 
increase  in  the  number  of  freemen,  and  an  attempt  there 
after  to  limit  the  franchise  by  imposing  a  definite  property 
qualification.  No  early  figures  snowing  the  proportion  of 
freemen  to  population  have  been  accessible  to  the  writer; 
but  in  1708  Governor  Cranston,  writing  to  the  Board  of 
Trade,  gives  the  population  of  the  colony  as  7181,  of  whom 
1015  were  freemen  in  the  towns.1  This  shows  the  remark 
ably  high  proportion  of  one  freeman  to  every  seven  in 
habitants,  and  a  potential  voting  class  of  the  same  propor 
tion.  A  few  years  after  this,  the  number  of  the  annual 
admissions  to  the  freemanship  increased  largely.  Taking 
the  ten  years  preceding  the  passage  of  the  restrictive  act 
of  February,  1723-4,  a  count  of  the  names  of  admitted 
freemen  shows  the  total  to  be  841 ;  but  the  rapid  increase 
is  shown  by  the  fact  that  in  the  five  years,  1714-1718  in 
clusive,  only  222  freemen  were  admitted;  while  from  1719 
to  February,  1724,  the  number  is  6i9.2  Almost  three  times 
as  many  persons  were  admitted  during  the  last  five  years 
as  were  received  during  the  first  five  years  of  this  decade. 
Such  a  growth  cannot  be  explained  by  mere  increase  in 
population ;  3  other  causes  must  have  been  at  work.  Since 
there  was  as  yet  no  general  property  qualification,  the  towns 
could  admit  as  freemen  any  persons  that  they  thought  pos 
sessed  competent  estates,  were  civil  in  conversation,  and 
obedient  to  the  civil  government.  That  the  towns  were  in 
terested  in  keeping  up  their  number  of  freemen  is  shown 
by  the  action  of  a  town  meeting  in  Providence.  In  June, 
1720,  a  committee  composed  of  persons  taken  from  the 
different  parts  of  the  town  was  chosen  to  make  lists  "  of  all 
such  as  are  Capable  of  being  made  free  men  and  bring 

1  R.  I.  Col.  Rec.,  IV,  59. 

-  See  the  lists  of  admitted  freemen  in  R.  I.  Col.  Rec.,  IV,  passim. 
As  has  already  been  mentioned,  the  admissions  were  usually  made  on 
the  day  before  the  annual  election,  but  occasionally  they  took  place 
at  the  other  sessions  of  the  assembly,  and  infrequently  even  on 
election  day  (R.  I.  Col.  Rec.,  IV,  481,  496,  521). 

a  Arnold,  Hist,  of  R.  L,  II,  77- 


454     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

there  seueral  Lists  to  the  Townes  next  quarter  meeting."  * 
The  committee  must  have  rendered  efficient  service,  for  in 
the  following  October  the  general  assembly  admitted  as 
freemen,  143  inhabitants  of  Providence;2  and  in  the  three 
and  a  half  years  from  October,  1720,  to  the  passage  of  the 
freeman  act  in  February,  1723-4,  almost  forty  per  cent,  of 
the  freemen  received  were  inhabitants  of  Providence.3 

This  industry  of  the  towns  in  freeman-making,  and  the 
low  standard  set  by  the  towns  for  the  freemanship,  com 
bined  with  the  increasing  population,  led  to  the  enactment 
of  the  law  of  February,  1723-4,*  "  Directing  the  Admitting 
Freemen  in  the  several  Towns  of  this  Colony."  After  the 
publication  of  this  act 

"  no  Person  whatsoever  shall  be  admitted  a  Freeman  of  any  Town  in 
this  Colony,  unless  the  Person  admitted  be  a  Freeholder  of  Lands, 
Tenaments,  or  Hereditaments,  in  such  Town  where  he  shall  be  ad 
mitted  Free,  of  the  Value  of  One  Hundred  Pounds,  or  to  the  value  of 
Forty  Shillings  per  Annum,  or  the  Eldest  Son  of  such  a  Freeholder : 
Any  other  Act,  Custom  or  Usage,  to  the  contrary  hereof,  notwith 
standing." 

Those  already  free  were  not  to  forfeit  their  freemanship 
if  they  did  not  possess  the  property  qualification.  No  con 
dition,  it  will  be  noticed,  was  imposed  by  this  act  upon  free 
men  of  the  colony,  except  by  the  indirect  restrictions  upon 
the  town  freemen.  The  custom  which  had  held  from  the 
earliest  period  was  not  thrown  aside  here. 

Other  interesting  features  are  to  be  seen  in  these  first 
suffrage  qualifications.  The  English  requirement  of  forty 
shillings  as  an  alternative  to  the  one  hundred  pounds,  again 

1  Providence  Records,  XIII,  38. 

2  R.  I.  Col.  Rec.,  IV,  289. 

3  See  lists  of  freemen,  R.  I.  Col.  Rec.,  IV,  289,  290,  293,  302,  309,  314, 

325,  327. 

*  Acts  and  Laws  of  His  Majesty's  Colony  of  Rhode-Island,  and 
Providence-Plantations  (Newport,  1730),  131.  The  act  appears  to 
have  brought  about  an  immediate  restriction  of  the  suffrage ;  for  while 
618  freemen  were  admitted  into  the  colony  in  the  five  years  before 
the  passage  of  the  act,  only  319  were  given  the  freemanship  in  the 
five  years  following  the  act  (see  Records,  passim}. 


The  Suffrage  in  Rhode  Island.  455 

shows  how  strong  was  the  force  of  this  precedent.  In  this 
case  it  may  have  been  inserted  with  the  desire  of  placating 
the  English  government,  which  was  evincing  considerable 
dissatisfaction  with  the  administration  of  affairs  in  Rhode 
Island,  and  the  Board  of  Trade  had  even  suggested  that 
Rhode  Island  and  Connecticut  be  annexed  to  the  royal 
province  of  New  Hampshire.1  English  precedents  can  also 
be  found  for  the  admission  to  the  freemanship  of  the  eldest 
sons  of  freemen,  when  the  sons  did  not  possess  the  property 
requirements.  It  is  believed  that  no  American  precedent 
can  be  found  for  this,2  with  the  possible  exception  of  the 
hereditary  semi-commercial  burgherrecht  of  the  Dutch  New 
Amsterdam,  which  is  not  likely  to  have  influenced  Rhode 
Island  seventy  years  after  the  English  conquest  of  New 
Netherland. 

In  England,  however,  we  have  an  instance  of  the  admis 
sion  of  the  sons  of  freemen  into  a  chartered  company, — 
which,  it  will  be  remembered,  was  the  legal  status  of  the 
colony  of  Rhode  Island.  The  Merchant  Adventurers  of 
England  by  an  ordinance  of  their  body  provided  that  free 
men  could  be  admitted,  among  other  ways,  by  "  patri 
mony."  Under  this  ordinance,  a  freeman's  son,  born  after 
his  father  had  been  made  "  an  absolute  ffree  and  sworn 
brother,"  was  entitled  to  the  freedom  of  the  company  with 
out  serving  an  apprenticeship  or  paying  the  heavy  fee  ordi 
narily  imposed.3  The  feature  of  hereditary  freemanship  is 
to  be  found  also  quite  generally  in  the  English  municipal 
corporations.  In  some  cases  it  was  granted  solely  to  the 
eldest  son  or  heir  of  a  freeman,4  in  others  it  was  given  to 
the  youngest  son ; 5  occasionally  to  all  the  sons  of  free- 

1  Arnold,  History  of  R.  I.,  II,  77. 

2  The  somewhat  similar  feature  in  Pennsylvania  was  adopted  in  the 
constitution    of    1776    (Poore,    Charters   and    Constitutions,   II,    1542), 
fifty  years  after  the  passage  of  the  Rhode  Island  law. 

3  W.  E.  Lingelbach,  The  Internal  Organisation  of  the  Merchant  Ad 
venturers  of  England  (Philadelphia,  1903,  9,  12). 

4  In  Retford    (Oldfield,  English  Boroughs,  II,  5)  ;    Exeter    (Izacke, 
Memorials   of  Exeter,   38,    39,    74)  ;     Richmond    (Hist,    of   Richmond 
[anon.,    1814],    120)  ;     Hastings    (Oldfield,    II,   301-304)  ;     Rye    (ibid., 
327-333),  etc. 

6  In  Durham  (Oldfield,  I,  244). 


456     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

men,1  and  sometimes  even  to  those  marrying  the  daughters 
of  freemen.2  From  some  of  these  English  precedents  the 
authors  of  the  act  of  1723-4  must  have  drawn  their  heredi 
tary  suffrage  provision,  which,  as  a  political  anomaly,  was 
to  continue  in  the  Rhode  Island  community  until  the  middle 
of  the  nineteenth  century.3 

While  there  is  thus  abundant  English  precedent  for  the 
hereditary  feature,  the  property  qualification  in  the  Rhode 
Island  law  led  to  a  form  of  difficulty  which  England  at  this 
time  was  spared.  The  mother  country  was  not  afflicted  with 
the  paper  money  craze,  while  Rhode  Island,  in  the  genera 
tion  following  the  passage  of  the  election  law  of  1724, 
passed  through  all  the  day  dreams  and  disillusions  of  a 
cheap  money  epoch.  The  first  issue  of  paper  money,  made 
in  May,  1710,*  was  speedily  followed  by  other  and  larger 
issues.  Depreciation  came  as  a  matter  of  course.  By  1731 
the  paper  was  quoted  at  two-fifths  of  its  value  in  I7io;5 
ten  years  later,  in  consequence  of  very  large  emissions  in 
the  interim,  its  sterling  value  was  only  one-fourth  the 
nominal  value.6  In  1750,  it  was  stated  that  £110,000  of 
the  money  was  worth  only  £10,000  sterling,7  and  this  ratio 

1  This  sometimes  included  all  sons,  and  sometimes  only  those  born 
after  the  father's  admission,  as  in  London. 

2  As  in  Bristol  (Evans,  Hist,  of  Bristol,  II,  40)  ;    Ludlow   (Oldfield, 
II,  39)  ;    Dover  (ibid.,  II,  312),  etc. 

3  The  English  town  whose  requirements  for  the  suffrage  apparently 
most  closely  approach  those  of  Rhode  Island  is  Nottingham.     In  that 
town  the  electors  were  all  freemen,  all  freeholders  of  forty  shillings 
income,  the  eldest  sons  of  freemen  by  birth,   and  the  youngest  sons 
after  having  served  a  seven  years'  apprenticeship  anywhere,  and  all 
other  persons  who  had  served  a  seven  years'  apprenticeship  to  freemen 
(An  Essay  on  the  Elective  Franchise,  Arthur  Kelly,  London,  1821,  p. 
63;    Oldfield,  II,  2).     Cp.  English  franchise,  ante,  13-15. 

*  Acts  and  Laws  of  His  Majesty's  Colony  in  Rhode  Island  and  Provi 
dence  Plantations  (Newport,  1745),  42,  and  passim  for  later  acts; 
Some  Account  of  the  Bills  of  Credit  or  Paper  Money  of  Rhode  Island 
from  the  First  Issue,  in  1710,  to  the  Final  Issue,  1786,  by  E.  R.  Potter 
and  S.  S.  Rider  (R.  I.  Historical  Tracts,  No.  8). 

5  R.  I.  Col.  Rec.,  IV,  459. 

°Ibid.,  V,  13. 

7  Ibid.,  284. 


The  Suffrage  in  Rhode  Island.  457 

was  accepted  by  the  Rhode  Island  assembly  and  commented 
upon  by  the  English  House  of  Commons.1  A  "  new  tenor" 
of  1740  depreciated  in  the  same  manner.  In  1756  provision 
was  made  for  another  new  issue,  called  "  lawful  money," 
which  was  maintained  at  about  the  ratio  of  one  and  one- 
third  to  one  pound  sterling ;  and  this  money,  or  English  and 
Spanish  coins,  remained  the  circulating  medium  until  the 
Revolution.2  In  the  mean  time,  by  1764,  the  old  tenor 
paper  was  quoted  at  twenty-three  and  a  third  for  one  pound 
of  lawful  money.3  These  few  figures  concerning  the  fluc 
tuations  in  value  of  the  paper  money  render  intelligible  the 
frequent  changes  in  the  suffrage  qualifications. 

As  the  paper  money  declined  in  value  the  bars  of  the 
freemanship  were  lowered,  and  the  assembly  lagging  years 
behind  the  depreciation,  tried  by  legislation  to  maintain  the 
standard  fixed  in  1724.*  The  first  reform  came  in  1729—30, 
when  the  property  qualification  was  changed  from  one  hun 
dred  pounds  value,  or  forty  shillings  income,  to  two  hundred 
pounds  value  of  freehold,  or  ten  pounds  annual  income  from 
land.  Eldest  sons  of  freeholders  could  still  be  admitted; 
but  the  provision  was  inserted  that  where  the  freedom  of  a 
town  was  obtained  by  "  any  fraudulent  Means  or  Contri 
vance/'  such  freemanship  should  be  void.5 

The  acts  of  1724  and  1730  merely  required  the  freeman 
to  possess  the  proper  amount  of  freehold  at  the  time  of  his 
admission  to  the  freemanship,  without  inquiring  into  his 
qualification  at  each  election.  This  naturally  led  to  corrup 
tion  and  the  defeat  of  the  intention  of  the  laws.  By  the 
preamble  of  a  new  act  of  1742  6  it  is  charged  that  "  many 
Persons  have  by  Frauds  and  other  indirect  Means,  procured 

1  Potter  and  Rider,  Some  Account  of  the  Bills  of  Credit,  76,  84. 

"-  Ibid.,  95,  97-99. 

3  Ibid.,  97. 

*  In  only  one  other  colony,  South  Carolina,  has  such  a  marked  rela 
tionship  between  the  suffrage  and  the  currency  been  found  to  exist, 
although  wherever  the  property  qualification  was  expressed  in  pounds 
and  not  in  acres  there  must  have  been  such  an  influence  of  the  one 
upon  the  other. 

6  Acts  and  Laws  of  Rhode  Island,  1730,  209. 

0  Ibid.,  1745,  252. 


458     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

themselves  to  be  made  Free  of  this  Colony,  who  really  are 
not  possessed  of  such  Estate,"  as  by  the  former  acts  is  re 
quired  ;  and  many  persons  formerly  possessing  the  requisite 
estates  "  have  afterwards  disposed  of  such  their  Estates,  and 
yet  continue  to  act  as  Freemen  in  this  Colony,  from  which 
many  very  ill  Consequences  have  already  arisen  to  the 
Colony,  and  many  more  will  ensue,  if  not  timely  pre 
vented."  Acting  under  these  impulses  the  legislature  en 
acted  that  no  person  "  shall  be  admitted  to  vote  or  act  as  a 
Freeman  in  any  Town  Meeting  in  this  Colony,  or  at  the 
General  Election,  but  such  only  who,  at  the  Time  of  such 
their  voting,  or  acting  as  Freemen,  are  really  and  truly  pos 
sessed  of  Lands,  Tenements,  or  Hereditaments  lying  in  this 
Colony  of  the  full  Value  of  Two  Hundred  Pounds  or  Ten 
Pounds  per  annum,  being  their  own  Freehold  Estate,  or  the 
eldest  Son  of  such  Freeholder."  1  Under  this  act  and  all 
subsequent  ones,  the  freeman's  rights  continued  only  so 
long  as  the  freeman  retained  those  qualities  which  were 
thought  essential  to  the  position.  If  his  property  were 
alienated,  he  lost  as  well  the  freeman's  prerogatives.  Thus 
the  freemanship,  formerly  a  grant  for  life,  became  condi 
tioned  upon  the  continuous  holding  of  land;  and  in  this 
respect  approached  more  closely  than  ever  before  to  the 
suffrage  qualifications  of  the  other  colonies.2 

Following  the  great  depreciation  of  the  currency  during 
the  decade  beginning  in  1740,  the  franchise  prerequisite  \vas 
still  farther  lowered.  The  assembly  in  the  preamble  to  an 
act  of  I7463  says  that  the  "  manner  of  admitting  Freemen 
in  this  Colony  is  so  lax  and  their  qualifications  as  to  their 
estates  so  very  low  that  many  Persons  are  admitted  who 
are  possessed  with  little  or  no  property;"  and  that  the 
admission  of  such  "  necessitous"  persons  has  encouraged 
evil-minded  persons  to  practice  bribery  and  corruption  in 

1  Acts  and  Laws  of  Rhode  Island,  1745,  252.  Suspected  persons  could 
be  required  to  take  oath  that  they  were  properly  qualified. 

1  There  was  no  saving  of  the  rights  of  persons  already  admitted,  as 
had  been  done  by  the  acts  of  1724  and  1730;  but  all,  old  freemen  and 
newly  admitted  ones,  must  conform  to  the  freehold  requirements. 

*  Acts  and  Laws  of  Rhode  Island,  1752,  13;  R.  I.  Historical  Tracts, 
No.  8,  59,  60. 


The  Suffrage  in  Rhode  Island.  459 

elections,  to  the  great  scandal  of  the  colony.  To  prevent 
these  evils  the  assembly  again  doubled  the  nominal  value  of 
the  freehold  required  of  voters,  now  making  it  the  ap 
parently  large  amount  of  four  hundred  pounds,  or  an  in 
come  of  twenty  pounds  a  year  from  rents.  In  reality,  it  may 
be  doubted  whether  this  amount  represented  as  much  pur 
chasing  power  as  the  one  hundred  pounds  required  by  the 
act  of  1724. 

Bribery  and  corruption  were  attacked  by  the  same  assem 
bly.  An  act  to  prevent  such  practices,  passed  in  1746,  is  the 
most  stringent  known  in  colonial  legislation.  According 
to  it,1  not  only  every  freeman  thereafter  admitted,  but  all 
freemen  already  admitted,  were  required  to  take  the  fol 
lowing  oath  or  affirmation : 

"  You  A.  B.  do  solemnly  swear  [or  affirm]  That  you  have  not,  and 
will  not,  receive  any  Money,  or  other  Reward,  or  other  Thing,  by 
which  you  may  expect  any  Money  or  future  Reward,  at  the  Election 
of  any  Officer  to  be  chosen  in  this  Colony :  And  that  you  will  not 
bargain  or  contract  with  any  Person,  directly  or  indirectly,  contrary 
to  the  true  Intent  and  Meaning  of  this  Oath  [or  Affirmation]  ;  but 
that  you  will  use  your  Freedom  for  the  Good  of  the  Gov't  only,  with 
out  any  other  Motive:  And  this  Declaration  you  make,  without  any 
Evasion,  Equivocation,  or  mental  Reservation  whatsoever." 

The  town  clerks  were  directed  to  send  annually  to  the  gen 
eral  assembly  lists  of  all  freemen  taking  the  oath.  To  dis 
courage  candidates  from  "  using  any  corrupt  or  unlawful 
Method"  to  obtain  offices,  it  was  enacted  that  if  "  One  single 
Vote  be  unlawfully  obtained  by  such  Candidate's  Procure 
ment,  Knowledge  or  Consent,"  the  election  should  "  be  de 
clared  utterly  null  and  void."  Suspected  persons  refusing 
to  purge  themselves  under  oath  were  to  be  declared  guilty. 
Any  one  convicted  of  bribery  was  to  suffer  the  penalty  of 
perjury  and  also  "  forever  thereafter  be  excluded  from  being 
a  Freeman,  or  voting,  or  bearing  any  public  Office,  what 
soever,  in  this  Colony;  And  shall  also  forever  be  rendered 
incapable  of  giving  Evidence  in  any  Court  of  Justice."  2 

1  Acts  and  Laws  of  Rhode  Island,  1766,  24. 

2  Ibid.     The  act  was  repealed  in   1767    (Session  Laws  of  1767,  n), 
and  all   persons   having  taken   the  oath  were   absolved    therefrom   as 
fully  as  though  they  had  never  taken  it. 


460     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

The  assembly  records  show  that  the  provisions  of  the  act 
were  carried  out,  no  person  being  permitted  to  vote  who 
had  not  taken  the  oath,  and  all  new  freemen  were  compelled 
to  subscribe  to  it.1  We  cannot  but  imagine  that  the  political 
corruption  had  reached  a  state  alarming  to  the  legislators 
when  they  felt  compelled  to  administer  such  an  oath  to  every 
voter  in  the  colony. 

By  1760,  owing  largely  to  the  influence  of  the  English 
government,  the  colonial  currency  was  placed  upon  a  rational 
basis,  and  thereafter  sterling  money  circulated  at  the  legal 
rate  of  133  per  cent.2  Again  the  change  in  the  money 
system  demanded  a  restatement  of  the  suffrage  qualifica 
tions,  for  under  the  "  lawful  money"  acts,  the  four  hundred 
pounds  requirement  would  be  exorbitanty^Accordingly,  in 
'1760,  the  assembly  enacted  that  for  the  future  no  person 
should 

/"  vote  and  act  as  a  freeman  in  any  case,  whatsoever,  but  such  only, 
who  at  the  time  of  voting,  shall  be  truly  and  really  possessed  of  land 
or  real  estate,  to  be  valued  and  determined  agreeably  to  the  former 
laws,  of  the  full  value  of  £40,  lawful  money,  or  that  will  rent  yearly 
for  forty  shillings,  lawful  money,  or  the  eldest  son  of  such  a  free 
man."  3 

The  same  qualifications  were  embodied  in  the  comprehensive 
election  law  of  1762,*  and  in  the  still  more  elaborate  provi 
sions  of  the  Digest  of  I767.5 

We  are  told,  in  the  preamble  of  the  act  of  1762*  that  the 
charter  right  of  the  colony  to  elect  their  officers  "  is  One  of 
the  noblest  Privileges  a  People  can  enjoy;"  and  it  "  is  of 
the  greatest  Importance"  that  the  elections  be  impartial,  and 
all  precautions  be  taken  to  prevent  collusive  practices,  par 
ticularly  since  some  towns  have  admitted  persons  as  free 
men  who  were  not  qualified  by  the  laws  of  the  colony.  The 

1  See  R.  I.  Col.  Rec.,  V,  213,  487;   VI,  43,  140,  201,  246. 

2  This  "  lawful  money"  of  Rhode  Island  was  equivalent  to  "  procla 
mation  money"  in  other  colonies. 

3  R.  I.  Col.  Rec.,  VI,  257. 

4  Session  Laws  of  1762;   R.  I.  Col.  Rec.,  VI,  322,  323,  343. 
*  Acts  and  Laws  of  Rhode  Island,  1767,  78  ff. 

6  Session  Laws  of  1762. 


The  Suffrage  in  Rhode  Island.  461 

new  legislation  impowered  the  towns  to  admit  as  freemen 
such  of  their  inhabitants  as  were  qualified  according  to  the 
terms  of  the  act,1  and  required  the  town  clerk  to  certify  the 
names  of  the  freemen  annually  to  the  assembly.  Those  "  so 
returned  and  admitted  Freemen  of  the  Colony  shall  be  en 
rolled  in  the  Colony's  Book."  The  freehold  qualification, 
now  containing  minor  clauses  to  prevent  fraud,  is  as  follows : 

"  And  be  it  further  Enacted  .  .  .  That  no  person  whosoever  shall 
be  permitted  to  vote,  or  act  as  a  Freeman  in  any  Town-Meeting  in 
this  Colony,  but  such  only  who  are  Inhabitants  therein,  &  who,  at  the 
Time  of  such  their  voting  &  acting,  are  really  &  truly  possessed,  in 
their  own  proper  Right,  of  a  Real  Estate,  within  this  Colony,  to  the 
full  Value  of  Forty  Pounds  or  which  shall  rent  for  Forty  Shillings 
per  Annum,  being  an  Estate  of  Fee-simple,  Fee-tail,  or  an  Estate  in 
Reversion,  which  qualifies  no  other  person  to  be  a  Freeman,  or  at 
least  an  Estate  for  a  Person's  own  Life,  or  the  eldest  Son  of  such  a 
Freeholder.  And  that  no  Estate  of  a  less  Quality  shall  entitle  any 
Person  to  the  Freedom  of  this  Colony."  2 

A  person  who  had  previously  obtained  admission  by  virtue 
of  his  wife's  dower,  or  by  virtue  of  rented  lands,  or  in  other 
irregular  ways,  was  to  forfeit  his  freemanship  at  once.  All 
persons,  excepting  the  eldest  sons  of  qualified  freeholders, 
were  to  be  propounded  for  three  months  before  the  respective 
towns,  and  the  evidence  of  their  qualification  must  be  pro 
duced  in  open  town  meeting.3  Suspected  persons  might  be 
challenged  in  town  meeting  and  compelled  to  take  oath  that 
they  were  properly  qualified,  and  thereafter  they  could  not 
vote  until  they  had  satisfied  the  town  as  to  their  qualifica 
tions.  Persons  convicted  of  executing  or  receiving  any 
fraudulent  deeds  were  "  to  be  utterly  incapable,  forever, 
thereafter  of  sustaining  any  Office,  or  of  voting  for  any  Offi 
cer,  in  this  Colony."  The  qualifications  imposed  by  these  acts 
were  to  be  enforced  upon  all  voters  for  town  deputies  in  the 
assembly  and  for  town  officers,  as  well  as  for  general  offi 
cers.  Inhabitants  might  be  admitted  as  freemen  and  given  a 
vote  for  general  officers  in  the  towns  where  they  resided,  if 

1  Digest  of  1767,  78,  79. 

2  Ibid. 

3  Ibid. 


462     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

they  owned  sufficient  land  in  any  part  of  the  colony,  and 
brought  satisfactory  proof  of  the  same  to  the  town  clerk. 
Apparently  a  man  voted  where  he  resided,  instead  of  where 
his  land  lay,  as  was  the  case  in  the  central  and  southern  colo 
nies.  The  right  of  the  eldest  son  to  vote  did  not  go  to  the 
second  son  upon  the  death  of  the  first,  unless  the  latter  had 
died  without  issue.1  A  fine  of  twenty  pounds  wras  to  be  in 
flicted  upon  an  unqualified  person  who  voted  unlawfully,  or 
upon  a  freeman  who  voted  more  than  once  at  the  same  elec 
tion.2 

With  the  repeal  of  the  oath  against  bribery  in  1767  3  the 
last  change  was  made  in  the  suffrage  qualifications  during 
the  colonial  period.  Beginning  with  complete  control  by 
the  towns  of  the  freeman  qualifications,  we  have  noticed  first 
the  influence  of  the  English  commissioners  in  securing  the 
passage  of  the  general  provision  for  competent  estates  and 
civil  conversation.  About  fifty  years  later  came  the  insertion 
of  clauses  in  the  statute  books  which  excluded  Jews  and 
Catholics  from  the  freemanship.  The  policy  of  restricting 
the  franchise  to  those  owning  a  definite  amount  of  real  estate 
began  in  1724  with  the  sum  of  £100,  or  forty  shillings  in 
come;  and  this  was  subsequently  raised  to  £200  and  £400 
as  the  value  of  money  depreciated.  The  return  of  sound 
money  compelled  the  restoration  of  a  smaller  qualification, 
which  in  1760  was  fixed  at  £40,  or  an  income  of  forty  shil 
lings  from  land.  In  1 746,  and  for  about  twenty  years  there 
after,  a  most  stringent  oath  against  bribery  was  required 
from  all  freemen.  Throughout  the  period  the  qualifications 
are  said  to  be  imposed  upon  town  freemen ;  who,  after  satis 
fying  the  town  meeting  and  being  accepted  thereby,  were 
proposed  to  the  assembly  for  admission  to  the  colonial  free 
dom.  Only  one  instance  has  been  noticed  in  the  later  years 
where  the  assembly  refused  to  accept  as  freemen  of  the 
colony  those  proposed  by  the  towns.4  The  later  legislation 

1  Digest  of  1767,  78,  79. 

*  In  the  latter  case  the  offender  was  also  to  be  disfranchised  for 
three  years.  Such  a  punishment  had  first  been  adopted  in  1736  (Digest 
of  1745,  193). 

'Session  Laws  of  1767,  n. 

4  R.  I.  Col.  Rcc.,  VI,  323. 


The  Suffrage  in  Rhode  Island.  463 

is  distinguished  for  as  elaborate  provisions  concerning  free- 
manship,  the  suffrage  and  elections  as  will  be  found  in  any 
other  colony. 

Turning  now  from  the  qualifications  of  voters  to  the  man 
ner  in  which  the  suffrage  was  exercised,  we  must  glance  at 
some  of  the  features  of  the  proxy  system  which  was  an  in 
tegral  part  of  the  Rhode  Island  election  laws.  In  this  sys 
tem  the  observer  always  finds  a  valuable  link  between  pure 
democracy  and  our  modern  representative  and  ballot  meth 
ods,  and  it  has  been  deemed  best,  therefore,  to  collect  the 
evidence  respecting  this  Rhode  Island  custom. 

Newport,  apparently,  pointed  the  way  for  such  a  system, 
when,  as  early  as  January,  1639-40,  the  town  ordered  that 
elections  should  be  held  annually  by  the  "  greater  part  of  the 
Bodie  of  Freemen,  then  or  ther  present,"  and  gave  permis 
sion  to  "  such  as  shall  be  necessarily  detained  to  send  in  their 
votes,  sealed  up  to  the  Judge."  1  The  assembly  of  1647,  the 
first  to  meet  under  the  charter  of  1644,  and  composed  of  all 
the  freemen,  permitted  those  who  wished  to  do  so  to  retire, 
but  required  them  to  leave  their  votes  behind  them.2  The 
same  assembly  in  almost  the  exact  words  of  the  Newport 
order  of  1640  made  the  proxy  system  a  permanent  part  of 
the  colonial  elections.3 

In  the  face  of  the  uncertainty  as  to  whether  the  charter  of 
1663  required  all  freemen  to  attend  personally  or  still  per 
mitted  the  use  of  proxies,  or  required  all  elections  to  be  by 
the  representative  assembly,  the  first  election  under  the  char 
ter  was  held  in  May,  1664,  by  the  freemen  "  personally  there 
present,"  4  without  the  admission  of  proxy  votes.  But  this 
assembly  "  seriously  considered"  the  inconvenience  of  com 
pelling  the  freemen  of  remote  towns  to  come  to  Newport  to 
vote,  and  referred  the  matter  to  the  assembly  meeting  in 
October,  1664*  At  the  latter  meeting6  the  following  order 
was  then  adopted : 

1 R.  I.  Col.  Rec.,  I,  98. 
2  Ibid.,  151. 
8  Ibid.,  149. 

4  Ibid.,  II,  29.  5  Ibid.,  39. 

8  Ibid. ,62.  They  had  the  "  helpfull  presance"  of  John  Clark,  the 
agent  who  was  instrumental  in  securing  the  charter. 


464     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

"  That  the  liberty  and  priviledge  of  electing  and  being  elected  vnto 
all  publicke  offices  in  this  Collony,  shall  continue  in  the  whole  body 
or  company  of  the  freemen  by  ther  parsonall  and  individuall  votting; 
and  whereas,  it  hath  ben  often  vrged  the  difficulty  .  .  .  parsonall 
voting  at  Newport  this  presant  Assembly  ordaynes,  that  voting  by 
proxces  be  enjoyed  by  all  the  freemen  of  this  Collony,  and  that  each 
freeman  desiering  to  vote  by  proxces  shall  subscribe  ther  names  on 
the  outside,  and  deliver  his  votes  sealed  vp  into  the  hands  of  a  magis 
trate,  in  the  face  of  a  town  meeting  .  .  .  ;  and  in  case  of  sickness 
and  nescecary  absence  from  the  sayd  towne  meetinge,  vnto  a  magis 
trate,  who  shall  deliver  the  sayd  votes  or  cause  them  to  be  delivered 
into  the  hands  of  the  Governor,  or  in  his  absence,  of  the  deputy  Gov 
ernor,  in  the  face  of  the  Court  of  Election;  .  .  .  provided,  that  this 
order  shall  noe  way  prejudice  or  discorradge  any  who  desier  to  be 
parsonally  presant.  ..." 

By  an  order  of  1666,  it  appears  that  not  only  the  absentees 
but  also  those  personally  present  at  the  election  in  Newport 
were  to  vote  by  means  of  "  wrighten  Votes."  2  The  use  of 
a  written  tablet  was  thereafter  required  of  all  voters  in  the 
colonial  elections. 

It  is  evident  that  from  1664  3  the  proxy  system  of  Rhode 
Island  was  nothing  more  than  a  method  of  collecting  ballots 
in  elections.  The  true  proxy  was  a  temporary  grant  of 
power  by  an  absentee  freeman  to  another  who  was  attendant 
upon  the  assembly.  Such  forms  of  proxies  are  found  in  the 
assembly  of  1647  an<^  perhaps  some  of  the  later  pure  demo 
cratic  meetings,  but  they  disappear  altogether  after  1664. 
What  the  Rhode  Island  assembly  called  a  proxy  was  simply 
a  written  ballot  sent  by  a  freeman  who  did  not  in  person 
attend  the  general  election.  For  over  a  century  of  the  col 
ony's  history  the  freeman  was  privileged  to  attend  the  elec 
tion  in  person  and  hand  in  an  unsigned  ballot,  or  he  could 
give  in  his  ballot,  properly  signed,  at  a  town  meeting  before 
the  general  election,  or,  if  detained  by  sickness,  to  some  mag- 

1 R.  I.  Col.  Rec.,  II,  62. 

2  Rider's  edition  of  MS.  Code  of  1705,  35,  36. 

8  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  voting  by  ballot  at  the  general  elections 
existed  before  1666.  As  early  as  1647  those  whom  the  "major  part 
of  the  General  Assembly  pitcheth  upon  by  paper"  were  to  be  accounted 
elected  (R.  I.  Col.  Rec.,  I,  191). 


The  Suffrage  in  Rhode  Island.  465 

istrate ;  and  the  actual  ballots  thus  received  were  "  sealed  up 
in  a  Packet,"  l  sent  to  the  officers  of  the  colony  and  opened  in 
their  presence  at  the  general  election  in  Newport.2 

By  the  year  1715  the  inevitable  election  evils  had  crept  into 
the  ballot  system.  "  Loose  and  fractious  freemen"  were 
found  "  putting  or  delivering  into  the  hat  sometimes  two, 
three  or  more  votes  for  one  officer."  3  The  assembly,  "  for 
the  preventing  said  clandestine  proceedings  for  the  future/' 
ordered  that  "  every  freeman  admitted  to  vote,  shall  write 
his  name  at  length  on  the  back  side  of  his  vote,  and  all  proxy 
votes  shall  have  the  same."  4  But  the  signing  of  ballots  in 
this  way  did  not  prove  popular.  The  next  assembly  found 
that  it  "  hath  given  great  dissatisfaction  and  uneasiness  to 
many  of  the  good  people  of  this  colony,  who  deem  it  a  very 
great  hardship  to  have  their  names  exposed  upon  such  oc 
casions,  to  the  creating  of  animosity  and  heart-burning  of 
their  particular  friends,  etc."  5  Accordingly,  that  part  of  the 
former  act  which  required  the  voters  present  at  the  election 
to  write  their  names  upon  their  ballots  was  repealed.  All 
proxy  votes,  however,  were  to  be  signed  according  to  the 
former  custom.6  For  a  number  of  years  after  this,  no  ma 
terial  change  appears  in  the  method  of  balloting.  Irregular 
proxies  were  sometimes  thrown  out  by  wholesale ; 7  and  in 
1743-4  it  was  stated  that  "  no  Person  Proxing  at  said  Meet- 

1  R.  I.  Col.  Rec.,  IV,  208. 

a  We  have  abundant  evidence  to  show  that  these  two  forms  of  voting 
were  carried  out.  Thus  on  May  4,  1669,  the  day  before  the  election, 
the  assembly  appointed  two  persons  "  to  write  the  names  of  such  as 
come  to  vote  tomorrow,  being  the  day  of  Election;"  two  others  were 
"to  receive  the  votes  from  such  as  vote  and  deliver  them  fayre  [fair] 
into  the  hat  on  the  table ;"  and  two  others  "  are  to  assist  for  the  open 
ing  of  the  proxes"  (ibid.,  II,  242).  In  1673  the  proxies  were  divided 
into  four  parts  and  as  many  committees  appointed  "  to  open  and  putt 
in  the  votes  as  called  for  into  the  hat"  (ibid.,  II,  484). 

a/Wd.,IV,i95. 

*  Ibid.  A  fine  not  exceeding  five  pounds,  or  corporal  punishment 
not  greater  than  twenty-one  stripes  on  the  bare  back,  were  to  be  in 
flicted  upon  non-freemen  who  voted  at  general  or  town  elections,  and 
upon  freemen  who  cast  more  than  one  vote  for  any  officer. 

5  Ibid.,  IV,  207.  'Ibid.,  268. 

7  Ibid.,  469,  507 ;   Arnold,  History  of  R.  I.,  II,  239. 

30 


466     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

ing  shall  have  Liberty  of  withdrawing  his  Proxy  at  the  Gen 
eral  Election,"  3  a  right  which  may  previously  have  been 
claimed. 

In  the  meantime  the  custom  of  appearing  personally  at  the 
elections  at  Newport  had  grown  less  popular.  By  1760  we 
learn  that  the  casting  of  proxy  votes  at  the  town  meetings 
was  "  the  ancient  and  laudable  custom  of  most  of  the  pru 
dent  freemen ;"  2  and  in  that  year  the  personal  appearance  of 
freemen  at  Newport  for  the  purpose  of  casting  their  votes 
was  prohibited  to  all  except  members  of  the  assembly.3  The 
reasons  for  abolishing  this  unique  feature  of  the  elections  are 
given  in  the  preamble  to  the  act  of  August  18,  1760.  The 
presence  of  the  freemen  at  the  election  is  said  to  have  been 
"  very  injurious  to  the  interest  and  public  weal  of  the  col 
ony."  It  further  occasioned  "  a  very  great  loss  of  people's 
time,  at  a  season  of  the  year  when  their  labor  is  abundantly 
necessary  for  preparing  the  ground  and  planting  the  seed,  on 
which  the  produce  of  the  whole  summer  must  depend."  The 
act  directed  that  "  every  freeman,  who  is  disposed  to  give  his 
suffrage  for  the  election  of  general  officers,"  should  do  so 
by  handing  in  a  proxy  vote  at  a  town  meeting  on  the  third 
Wednesday  of  April  preceding  the  election.4 

Thus  the  picturesque  gathering  of  the  freemen  at  New 
port,  meeting  perhaps  in  a  kitchen  5  or  in  a  Quaker  meeting 
house,6  and  each  man  individually  putting  his  ballot  into  the 
hat  on  the  table,  was  discontinued.  The  custom  had  orig 
inated  under  the  early  charter,  and  was  retained  under  that 
of  1663  because  it  was  thought  the  charter  required  a  general 
meeting  of  the  freemen  for  elective  purposes; "  but  by  1760 
the  assembly  evidently  thought  they  would  incur  no  danger 

1  Acts  and  Laws  of  Rhode  Island,  1745,  287. 

"-R.  I.  Col.  Rec.,  VI,  256. 

3  Ibid.,  256,  257-  'Ibid. 

5  Ibid.,  II,54i.  6  Ibid.,  IV,  569. 

~  Bellomont,  writing  to  England  in  1699  concerning  irregularities  in 
Rhode  Island,  said,  "  Their  Election  of  Generall  Officers  is  partly  made 
by  proxies,  and  allowed  of  by  an  Act  of  the  government,  contrary  to 
the  rules  of  their  Charter  in  that  respect ;  which  prescribes  that  the 
Elections  be  made  by  such  greater  part  of  the  Company  as  shall  be 
present  at  the  Generall  Assembly"  (R.  I.  Col.  Rec.,  Ill,  386). 


The  Suffrage  in  Rhode  Island.  467 

of  forfeiting  the  charter  by  adopting  a  more  convenient 
method  of  holding  elections.  On  the  other  hand,  the  method 
of  sending  the  actual  ballots  (proxies)  from  the  several 
towns  to  Newport  to  be  counted,  was  still  continued.1 

We  must  now  notice  what  other  forms  of  the  suffrage  ex 
isted  than  that  for  the  general  colonial  officers.  There  were 
several  types  of  elections  in  which  the  suffrage  included  per 
sons  who  were  not  freemen  of  the  colony.  The  most  impor 
tant  of  such  elections  were  those  held  in  the  towns  for  depu 
ties  and  for  town  officers.  There  are  also  meetings  and 
elections  among  the  groups  of  land  proprietors  which  existed 
in  almost  all  the  towns;  and  finally,  the  militia  franchise  was 
considerably  wider  than  that  of  the  town  or  colony. 

The  suffrage  in  the  towns  was  vested  in  those  inhabitants 
who  had  been  admitted  by  the  town  meeting  as  freemen. 
Some  comment  has  been  made  concerning  the  early  restric 
tions  imposed  by  the  towns;  and  the  legislation  by  the  as 
sembly  upon  the  subject  has  been  reviewed  at  length.  The 
several  property  qualifications  were  in  each  case  placed  by  the 
assembly  upon  those  admitted  to  the  town  freemanship,  and 
not  directly  upon  the  freemen  of  the  colony.  Hence  the  qual 
ifications  already  mentioned  are  those  required  of  town  free 
men,  varying  as  we  have  seen  from  one  hundred  to  four 
hundred  pounds  and  back  again  to  forty.  In  addition  to 
these  compulsory  qualifications,  the  towns  in  the  early  period 
had  wide  liberty  in  the  admission  and  rejection  of  inhabi 
tants,  and  by  this  means  could  impose  other  qualifications.2 

1  By  the  act  of  1762  (Session  Laws)  and  the  Digest  of  1767  (83,  84), 
the  freemen  were  required  to  hand  their  proxies  "  one  by  one,  in  their 
own  proper  Persons"  to  the  moderator  of  the  town  meeting,  and  the 
clerk  must  keep  a  record  of  all  persons  voting  and  send  the  list  to  the 
assembly. 

~  In  1682  town  councils  were  authorized  to  require  a  bond  from  new 
comers  (R.  I.  Col.  Rec.,  Ill,  117).  In  1728,  because  persons  of  a 
"  flexible  Disposition"  might  tender  bonds  for  "  profligate  Persons," 
the  town  councils  were  empowered  to  accept  such  bond  or  not  as  they 
saw  fit;  and  if  they  refused  to  accept  it,  the  person  in  question  was 
to  be  conveyed  out  of  the  town  (Acts  and  Laws  of  R.  I.,  1730,  150, 
act  of  Feb.,  1727-8).  See  Providence  Records,  VI,  151,  for  instance 
of  refusal  to  admit  an  inhabitant. 


468     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

But  by  1766  and  perhaps  before  that  time,  the  town  could 
not  refuse  to  recognize  as  an  inhabitant  any  one  (a)  who 
had  resided  in  the  town  for  one  year  and  had  not  been 
warned  to  depart:  (b)  who  had  purchased  a  freehold  of  the 
value  of  forty  pounds  in  the  town;  or  (c)  who  was  an  ap 
prentice  and  had  served  out  his  time  in  the  town.1  By  these 
provisions  the  town  must  accept  as  an  inhabitant  any  one 
who  had  purchased  land  sufficient  to  qualify  him  for  the 
freemanship.  Whether  they  could  refuse  to  accept  him  as  a 
town  freeman  and  thus  prevent  his  gaining  the  colony  free 
dom  as  well,  does  not  appear  on  the  face  of  the  records  or 
the  laws.  By  this  date,  however,  it  is  believed  that  there  was 
little  discretion  exercised  by  the  towns.2 

The  only  difference,  then,  between  the  town  suffrage  and 
that  of  the  colony  was  in  the  action  taken  by  the  general  as 
sembly  upon  the  name  of  the  town  freeman.  After  the  ad 
mission  of  a  freeman  to  the  town,  the  town  clerk  was  re 
quired4  by  law  to  send  the  new  freeman's  name  to  the  general 
assembly,  to  be  acted  upon  by  them  for  the  colonial  freeman- 
ship  ;  and  the  latter  was  granted,  so  far  as  the  records  show, 
as  a  matter  of  course.  Thus  the  man  would  be  a  freeman  of 
a  town  only  a  few  months  or  at  most  a  year  before  he  would 
obtain  the  colonial  franchise.  For  our  purposes  the  two 
classes  may  be  taken  as  identical.3 

1  Acts  and  Laws  of  Rhode  Island,  1767,  228  ff. 

2  This  is  supported  by  the  word  "shall"  in  the  Digest  of  1767   (p. 
78)  :  "  Be  it  Enacted  .  .  .  That  the  Freemen  of  each  respective  Town 
in  this  Colony,  at  their  Town  Meeting  Days,  shall,  and  they  hereby 
have  full  Power  granted  them  to  admit  so  many  Persons,  Inhabitants 
of  their  respective  Towns,  Freemen  of  their  Towns,  as  shall  be  qualified 
according  to  this  Act." 

3  That    they    were    not    absolutely    so    in    practice    is    shown    by   the 
express    statement   that   town    deputies    to    the    assembly   were   to    be 
elected  by  the  freemen  of  the  towns,  and  not  merely  by  freemen  of 
the  colony  (R.  I.  Col.  Rec.,  IV,  338).     But  this  provision  was  probably 
made  in  order  that  newly  elected  freemen  of  the  towns  might  have 
a  voice  in  the  election  of  assemblymen.     The  same  care  is  shown  in 
the    permission    that    new    town    freemen    may    vote    for    all    general 
officers,  and  if  the  general  assembly  admit  them  as  colony  freemen  the 
votes  were  to  be  counted ;    if  not  admitted,  the  votes  were  declared 
void  (Acts  and  Laws  of  R.  I.,  1767,  78-87). 


The  Suffrage  in  Rhode  Island.  469 

Within  the  towns  there  soon  arose  a  more  exclusive  group 
than  that  made  up  of  the  freemen.  We  have  noticed  how  in 
the  early  days  a  person  accepted  by  a  town  as  a  freeman  was 
usually  entitled  to  share  in  the  town  lands  upon  an  equal 
plane  with  the  first  proprietors.1  But  ouier  inhabitants  or 
small  freeholders  entered  the  settlement,  and  might  purchase 
or  receive  grants  of  land  without  any  interest  in  the  undi 
vided  portions  of  the  town.  Thus  about  the  early  "  pur 
chasers"  or  "  proprietors"  there  grew  up  a  large  class  who 
did  not  share  their  rights. 

The  town  records  of  Providence  show  admirably  the  grad 
ual  separation  of  these  two  classes.  In  the  earliest  period 
land  matters  were  discussed  in  the  general  town  meeting ; 2 
but  about  1 66 1  the  majority  of  the  "  purchasers"  ordered 
that  requests  to  the  town  for  lands  should  be  referred  to  the 
purchasers  for  acceptance  or  refusal.3  Thereafter  frequent 
references  are  made  to  "  purchasers  meetings."  4  The  rec 
ords  of  their  meetings  are  still  kept  in  the  town  book,  their 
meetings  and  elections  are  held  on  the  same  days  as  the  town 
meetings  and  elections,5  but  care  is  taken  that  the  acts  be 
recorded  as  performed  by  the  purchasers.  After  1706  no 
further  records  of  the  purchasers  are  included  in  the  town 
books,  and  by  1715  the  town  and  the  purchasers  form  two 
distinct  bodies  which  are  compelled  to  appoint  committees  to 
settle  differences  with  one  another.6  The  rights  of  purchas 
ers  could  be  alienated  and  devised  or  inherited.7  A  final 
land  division  among  the  Providence  "  purchasers"  took  place 
in  1719,  in  which  one  hundred  and  one  persons  participated.8 

1  See  ante,  434-436. 

2  Providence  Records,  I,  II,  passim. 

3  Ibid.,  Ill,  10.    The  record  is  badly  mutilated  and  lacks  date,  but  fol 
lows  an  item  dated  1661. 

*Ibid.,  Ill,  ii ;  IV,  36;    IX,  9,  12,  18,  etc. 
5  Ibid.,  IX,  18,  19,  23,  34,  49,  90,  91,  102-108. 
<Ibid.,XI,  178. 

7  Ibid.,  Ill,   157;    VIII,  69.     In   Providence  there  was  also  a  group 
of  purchasers  who  received  only  twenty-five  acres,  who  may  have  been 
entitled  to  only  one-fourth  of  a  vote  in  proprietors'   meetings    (ibid., 
II,  74,  125,  127;   IV,  36;   VIII,  154).    See  Chapter  VII  for  similar  case 
on  Long  Island. 

8  Arnold,  History  of  R.  I.,  I,  121. 


4/o     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

Far  broader  than  any  other  form  of  suffrage  in  the  colony 
was  that  granted  for  the  militia  elections,  which  for  many 
years  was  vested  in  all  the  soldiers  of  the  "  train  bands." 
The  custom  was  evidently  brought  from  Massachusetts  by 
the  Newport  settlers,  who,  as  early  as  1639,  directed  the  train 
band  to  choose  their  own  officers.1  In  the  code  of  1647 
under  the  charter  of  1644  the  militia  officers  were  to  be 
chosen  by  the  "  inhabitants"  of  the  several  towns  from 
among  themselves.2  The  same  method  was  retained  under 
the  new  charter  of  i663.3 

When  the  office  of  major  was  erected  in  1677,  that  officer 
was  to  be  elected  as  follows :  "  every  soldier  listed  and  ap- 
pearinge  in  armes  on  the  traininge  day  in  March,  appointed 
by  law  in  his  or  their  respective  towne  or  place  in  the  Collony, 
shall  have  free  liberty  to  vote  in  writinge  for  one  person  to 
be  Major  for  the  ensuinge  year."  4  Under  this  law,  as  under 
the  early  laws  of  other  colonies,  the  right  of  suffrage  for 
military  officers  and  the  duty  of  serving  in  the  militia  went 
together.  If  a  person  were  compelled  to  serve  in  the  band, 
although  only  a  boy  of  sixteen  or  an  indentured  servant,  he 
had  a  right  to  vote  for  the  military  officers. 

Such  popular  elections5  did  not  fail  to  meet  the  disap 
proval  of  Bellomont  in  1699,  when  seeking  grounds  of  com 
plaint  against  the  colony ;  and  he  called  the  attention  of  the 
English  government  to  the  fact  that  the  commissioned  offi 
cers  were  elected  by  the  soldiers,  instead  of  being  appointed 
by  the  assembly  or  the  governor  and  assistants  as  the  charter 
enjoined.6  Perhaps  it  was  this  report  which  led  the  assem- 

1 R.  I.  Col.  Rec.,  I,  93. 

2  Ibid.,  1, 153-  '  Ibid.,  II,  52,  568. 

4  Ibid.,  II,  587.    The  actual  ballots  were  to  be  delivered  to  the  general 
assembly  as  in  the  case  of  proxies   for  general  officers.     The  listed 
soldiers  included  all  male  persons  between  the  ages  of   sixteen  and 
sixty  years,  including  servants,  and  excluding  some  few  persons  hold 
ing  important  political  or  economic  positions. 

5  Ibid.,  386. 

6  Later  it  was  seen  that  these  orders  excluded  old  men — "  ancient 
freemen" — who,   being   over    sixty   years   of   age,    were   exempt   from 
military  training;    and  consequently  the   elections   of  major   for  the 
future  were  ordered  to  be  by  the  freemen  and  the  train  bands   (R.  I. 
Col.  Rec.,  Ill,  9,  118). 


The  Suffrage  in  Rhode  Island.  471 

bly,  by  1705,  to  perceive  "  the  great  inconveniences  and  dis 
honor  it  brings  to  the  Collony  in  admitting  the  listed  sol 
diery"  to  a  vote  in  the  choice  of  officers,  and  to  realize  that 
the  votes  of  "  transient  persons  and  many  youth  of  small 
consideration"  led  to  the  choice  of  officers  who  were  "  not 
honorable  to  her  Majesty  nor  capable  of  serving"  in  the 
offices  to  which  they  were  elected.1  At  any  rate  the  suffrage 
in  such  elections  was  thereafter  to  be  limited  to  the  freemen 
of  the  towns  or  colony.  Only  a  year  afterwards,  however, 
the  old  elections  by  all  the  soldiers  were  restored.2 

But  in  1713  Bellomont's  interpretation  of  their  charter 
was  accepted  and  provision  was  made  for  the  annual  election 
of  militia  officers  by  the  assembly.3  Again,  in  1726,  the  elec 
tions  were  ordered  to  be  held  by  the  soldiers  and  freemen  of 
the  towns.4  In  fifteen  years  this  policy  had  been  found  to  be 
"  vastly  prejudicial"  to  the  colony,  and  in  1740-1  the  selec 
tion  of  the  military  officers  was  permanently  vested  in  the 
assembly,  the  governor  retaining  his  right  to  commission  the 
officers.5 

We  may  conclude  this  section  by  summing  up  what  few 
facts  have  been  found  concerning  the  size  of  the  freeman 
class  in  Rhode  Island.  In  the  early  years  the  freemen  corre 
sponded  closely  in  number  to  the  free  male  inhabitants,  al 
though  almost  from  the  first  there  were  some  inhabitants  not 
enjoying  freemen's  rights.  Yet  we  are  told  that  in  1677  the 
inhabitants  were  *'  generally  freemen."  °  The  comparatively 
high  proportion  of  one  freeman  to  every  seven  of  the  popu 
lation  in  1708  has  already  been  noted;7  but  in  1713  the 
assembly  thought  the  non-freeman  inhabitants  so  numerous 
that  the  militia  elections  should  be  taken  from  them.8  The 

'Rider,  MS.  Code  of  1705,  116;   R.  I.  Col.  Rec.,  Ill,  534. 
*Ibid.,  Ill,  563. 

8  Ibid.,  IV,  155  ;   Acts  and  Lazvs  of  R.  /.,  1730,  90-99. 
4  R.  I.  Col.  Rec.,  IV,  377- 


•  Ibid.,  IV,  155- 
T  Ibid.,  59- 
'Ibid.,  155- 


t;\^  xx  v^ 


3 


V 


\,  \\ 

X.  ^.  C^«t  »«v,s  \\ 


5\>XX  W 


ZV 


f> 


OflC 


r&gp??,  ^  iTit  icue 

1',  ^Tft   t 


n. 


ici*JTfl**:  a 


-  .  -  . 

^r  e  'jer  -^  r,r 


«2tr)r 


Csru 
-.:rt 


tt  iifc  MHI/SKT  life*  m  - 
i     Jrt  ^t»r:  R  iien»  nsctt^  tt 


TOT 
ir 


474     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

applied  to  voters  in  other  colonies;   and  the  word  freeman 
applied  to  electors  in  many  colonies  would  exclude  women. 

2.  Age.  The  adoption  of  the  legal  age  of  twenty-one 
years  was  almost  as  universal  as  was  male  suffrage.     In 
only  two  colonies,  New  Jersey  and  Maryland,  is  it  lacking 
from  the  election  laws,  and  there  is  no  doubt  that  it  was  en 
forced   in   those   colonies.      There   were,   however,    several 
instances  in  which  the  age  of  voters  differed  from  the  com 
mon  English  requirement.     Massachusetts  as  early  as  1647 
required  non-freemen  who  were  chosen  to  participate  in  local 
government  to  have  attained  the  age  of  twenty-four  years; 
between  1664  and  1686  the  same  age  was  required  of  non- 
church-members  who  were  admitted  to  the  freedom  of  the 
colony;    and  the  twenty-four  years'  provision  was  incor 
porated  into  the  short-lived  Cutt  code  of  New  Hampshire  as 
a  requirement  for  all  voters.     In  the  New  England  militia 
elections,  on  the  other  hand,  the  voting  age  was  less  than 
twenty-one  years,  for  usually  all  the  soldiers  or  all  those  re 
quired  to  equip  themselves  with  arms  were  permitted  to  share 
in  the  choice  of  militia  officers;   and  as  the  trained  bands 
included  nearly  all  males  over  sixteen  years  of  age,  it  is 
probable  that  some  under  twenty-one  years  voted  in  these 
elections.     Plymouth,  late  in  her  history,  set  a  new  age  re 
quirement  of  twenty  years  for  voters  in  militia  elections. 
Aside  from  these  few  exceptions,  it  is  believed  that  elections 
were  never  legally  open  to  persons  under  the  age  of  twenty- 
one  years. 

3.  Race  and  Nationality.     A  racial  distinction  arose  nat 
urally  in  the  colonies  possessing  a  large  negro  slave  popula 
tion.     Apparently  the  first  law  upon  the  subject  is  that  of 
North  Carolina  of  1715  which  excluded  negroes,  mulattoes 
and  Indians  from  the  franchise.     In  1716  South  Carolina 
inserted  the  word   "  white"   into  her  election  law ;    while 
Virginia   adopted  the  phraseology   of   North   Carolina   in 
1723,   and   Georgia   followed   with   the  word   "white"   in 
1761.     The  North  Carolina  statute  was  repealed  in  1734-5 
and  the  racial  restriction  does  not  again  appear  during  the 
colonial  period. 

At  English  common  law  no  foreigner  could  exercise  politi 
cal  rights  in  England,  and  this  general  principle  was  ex- 


Conclusion.  475 

tended  to  the  colonies,  where  the  only  noteworthy  infringe 
ment  upon  it  is  to  be  found  in  the  position  of  the  Huguenots 
in  South  Carolina  before  1696-7.  Foreigners,  when  they 
received  a  citizen's  rights,  obtained  it  either  by  treaty  right,1 
by  special  act  of  a  colonial  legislature,2  or  under  the  terms  of 
general  laws  passed  for  that  purpose.  After  the  year  1740  an 
act  of  parliament  forbade  the  naturalization  of  any  Catholic 
aliens  in  the  colonies,  a  policy  which  New  York  and  Massa 
chusetts  had  anticipated  by  twenty-five  and  ten  years  respect 
ively.  In  a  few  cases,3  there  was  an  explicit  exclusion  of 
aliens  from  elections  or  office-holding;  but  this  was  unusual, 
and  the  force  of  English  precedent  was  generally  the  only  bar 
between  the  foreigner  and  the  franchise. 

4.  Religion  and  Good  Character.  Religious  qualifications, 
as  is  well  known,  were  more  exclusive  and  more  rigidly  en 
forced  in  New  England  than  in  any  of  the  other  colonies. 
Massachusetts  from  1631  until  1664  required  all  freemen  to 
be  church-members,  and  after  that  date,  while  membership 
in  the  church  was  not  required  of  persons  who  possessed  cer 
tain  other  qualifications,  yet  even  the  few  freemen  who  were 
admitted  under  the  terms  of  the  law  of  1664  were  compelled 
to  bring  certificates  from  the  ministers  of  their  towns  that 
they  were  orthodox  in  religious  belief.  The  New  Haven 
freemen  must  be  members  of  some  approved  church  in  New 
England ;  Plymouth  disfranchised  those  who  set  up  churches 
without  the  approbation  of  the  authorities;  and  even  Con 
necticut  in  practice,  if  not  in  law,  appears  to  have  enforced 
religious  conformity. 

Besides  this  general  exclusion  in  New  England  of  those 
who  did  not  belong  to  the  established  churches,  there  were 
particular  sects  upon  whom  were  visited,  not  in  New  England 
alone,  the  pains  of  disfranchisement.  In  the  middle  of  the 
seventeenth  century  the  Quakers  were  outlawed  in  all  the 
colonies  from  Virginia  to  Massachusetts  with  the  exception 
of  Rhode  Island,  and  Baptists  had  but  little  more  leniency 

1  As  the  Dutch  and  Swedes  within  the  Duke  of  York's  patent. 

2  As  early  as  1666  in  Maryland,  Archives,  Acts,  1666-76,  144,  205,  270- 
272,  330,  400,  460. 

'North  Carolina,  1715;    Pennsylvania,  1694;    Delaware,   1734;    New 
Hampshire,  1680. 


476     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

shown  to  them.  But  the  sect  which  received  the  most  liberal 
share  of  political  persecution  was  the  Roman  Catholic.  The 
colonial  attitude,  outside  of  New  England,  where  it  was 
always  hostile,  varied  with  the  changes  in  English  politics. 
The  English  commonwealth  movement  led  to  the  disfran- 
chisement  of  Catholics  in  Maryland,  and  a  similar  but  short 
lived  result  appeared  in  Maryland  and  New  York  after  the 
Revolution  of  1688.  In  New  Hampshire  in  1680  the  fran 
chise  was  distinctly  limited  to  Protestants,  but  this  was  in 
force  only  two  years.  In  1699  Virginia  permanently  dis 
franchised  "  recusant  convicts,"  and  two  years  later  New 
York  excluded  Catholics  from  elections.  In  1718  Maryland, 
and  in  1719  Rhode  Island  took  similar  action,  while  not  until 
1759  did  South  Carolina  limit  her  voters  to  those  professing 
the  Protestant  faith. 

Jews  were  disfranchised  almost  as  frequently  as  Catholics. 
In  1682  the  first  Pennsylvania  assembly  restricted  political 
privileges  to  those  who  believed  in  "  Jesus  Christ  the  Son  of 
God  and  Saviour  of  the  World";  between  1716  and  1759 
South  Carolina  required  voters  to  be  Christians,  and  Prot 
estants  after  the  latter  date.  New  York  in  1737,  by  resolu 
tion  of  the  assembly,  disfranchised  Jews,  and  Rhode  Island 
in  1719  limited  the  suffrage  to  Protestant  Christians. 

Good  character  qualifications,  like  the  religious  require 
ment,  were  most  common  in  New  England.  Connecticut,  in 
1657,  1659  and  1662  required  candidates  for  the  freemanship 
to  be  of  "  peaceable  and  honest  conversation ; "  Massachu 
setts,  in  1664,  required  non-church-members  applying  for  the 
freemanship  to  be  "  not  vicious  in  life;  "  Plymouth,  in  1658, 
disfranchised  lyers,  drunkards,  swearers  and  those  refusing 
to  take  the  oath  of  fidelity  to  the  government.  Rhode  Island's 
"  civil  conversation"  and  "  obedience  to  the  civil  magistrate" 
were  taken  from  the  instructions  to  the  king's  commissioners 
of  1664,  and,  in  turn,  were  adopted  in  part  by  Plymouth  in 
1669 ;  while  New  Hampshire,  in  1680,  copied  the  good  char 
acter  clause  of  the  Massachusetts  law.  A  somewhat  similar 
feature  is  to  be  found  in  the  Rhode  Island  compulsory  oath 
administered  to  all  freemen  between  1746  and  1767,  that 
they  would  use  no  bribery  or  dishonest  methods  in  elections. 
Outside  of  New  England  the  good  character  provisions  are 


Conclusion.  477 

unusual.  We  may  note  the  clause  in  Penn's  Laws  Made  in 
England  which  excluded  persons  convicted  of  ill-fame  or  of 
unsober  and  dishonest  conversation ;  and  the  Virginia  act  of 
1762  which  excluded  from  the  colonial  franchise  freeholders 
who  were  convicts  during  the  time  for  which  they  were 
transported. 

5.  Residence.  In  New  England,  owing  to  the  close  life  of 
the  towns  and  to  the  early  and  numerous  restrictions  upon 
the  reception  of  inhabitants  into  the  towns,  there  is  rarely  any 
formal  term  of  residence  required  for  freemen.  Practically 
no  one  could  gain  a  residence  without  the  consent  of  the 
town;  and  in  some  cases,  as  in  Plymouth  particularly  and 
in  Massachusetts,  the  consent  of  the  colonial  authorities  was 
also  required  before  one  could  settle  in  a  town.  To  the  south 
ward  of  New  England,  where  the  personal  sifting  process 
of  the  New  England  town  life  did  not  exist,  it  was  more 
necessary  that  a  term  of  residence  for  voters  be  established 
by  law.  And  yet  this  did  not  come  very  early  and  in  some 
cases  it  was  never  adopted.  Thus  in  Maryland,  in  1642,  we 
learn  that  neither  the  holding  of  land  nor  the  possession  of 
a  definite  place  of  residence  was  required,  and  the  sarrfe  tol 
erant  spirit  is  seen  in  the  Carolinas  and  Virginia.  After  this 
early  laxity  residence  restrictions  were  gradually  adopted. 
In  Virginia  and  the  Carolinas  there  is  an  effort  to  limit  the 
suffrage  to  housekeepers,  but  this  soon  gives  place  to  other 
qualifications,  such  as  freeholding  or  tax-paying,  which 
imply  a  residence  in  the  colony  or  an  evident  interest  in  its 
concerns.  By  the  Revolutionary  days  a  residence  within  the 
county  was  required  of  those  voting  in  Maryland  under  the 
personal  property  qualification ;  in  North  Carolina  the  voter 
must  have  resided  six  months  in  the  province ;  in  South  Car 
olina,  after  an  early  requirement  of  only  three  months'  resi 
dence,  the  term  was  permanently  fixed,  in  1721,  at  one  year, 
and  Georgia  followed  North  Carolina  with  a  six  months' 
provision.  Pennsylvania  and  Delaware  compelled  the  voter 
to  reside  two  years  in  the  province ;  New  Jersey  required  a 
year's  residence  in  the  county,  city  or  town  where  the  elector 
voted ;  while  New  York  was  content  with  a  simple  require 
ment  that  a  freeholder  must  have  held  his  land  three  months 
before  the  election  at  which  he  offered  to  vote.  Virginia, 


478     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

New  York  and  New  Hampshire,  apparently,  had  no  definite 
residence  qualifications. 

(^Property  Qualifications.  During  the  seventeenth  cen 
tury  some  property  qualification  upon  voters  was  implied  in 
the  laws  and  customs  of  many  of  the  colonies,  and  in  the 
eighteenth  century  such  a  requirement  was  universal.  Prop 
erty  qualifications,  for  our  purposes,  may  be  divided  into  (a) 
those  which  do  not  state  the  form  of  property  required;  (b) 
those  which  limit  the  necessary  property  to  freehold  alone; 
(c)  those  which  give  an  alternative  between  a  real  and  a  per 
sonal  property  minimum,  and  (d)  those  establishing  a  tax- 
paying  requisite  for  voters.  Instances  of  each  of  these  can 
be  found  during  the  colonial  period. 

A.  Of  the  indefinite  property  qualifications,  perhaps  the 
most  general  was  that  in  force  in  Rhode  Island  between  1665 
and  1723,  which,  adopting  the  language  of  the  king's  letter 
to  the  New  England  colonies,  required  all  freemen  to  be  per 
sons  of  "  competent  estates."    More  specific,  but  still  vague, 
are  the  South  Caroling  laws  of  1692  and  1716  requiring  the 
voter  "to  be  worth"  ten  pounds  or  thirty  pounds  respect 
ively  ;   and  of  a  similar  nature  is  the  thirty  pounds  estate  in 
Connecticut  in  1657.     More  definiteness  was  gained  by  the 
requirement  that  the  property  be  taxable;    as  in  the  twenty 
pounds  of  rateable  estate  in  Plymouth  in  1669  and  in  New 
Hampshire  in  1680,  and  the  Connecticut  twenty  pounds  as 
sessment  of  1662. 

B.  Where  freeholdership-Avas.ajce_qjiisitg_ for  the  suffrage, 
there^  might :  be  jig ^minjmuiTLsize  or  value  of  tthe  freehold,  as 
inVirgmia  from  i(5^6jo _  1736,  .in-West  Jersey  after  1682,  or 
New  Hampshire  from  1682  to  1699.     But  this  early  exten 
sion  of  the  franchise  to  all  freeholders  without  respect  to  the 
size  or  value  of  the  real  estate  soon  gave  place  to  a  less  lib 
eral  policy.    The  minimum  freehold  was  measured  in  one  of 
three  ways;    either  by  the  English  custom  of  requiring  a 
definite  income  from  land,  or  by  fixing  a  certain  value  of 
freehold,  or  a  certain  size  in  acres  or  town  lots.    The  first  of 
these  tests,  in  the  form  of  a  forty-shilling  income  from  free 
hold  estate,  was  in  force  in  New  York  from  1683  to  1699; 
in  New  Hampshire  from  1699  to  1727;    in  Massachusetts 
after  1691,  and  Connecticut  after  1689,  but  in  the  last  two 


Conclusion.  479 

cases  some  other  alternative  was  permissible;  and  it  was 
part  of  the  qualifications  of  Rhode  Island  between  1723  and 
1730,  and  after  1760.  Thus  all  the  New  England  colonies 
possessed  the  English  standard  of  freehold,  and  in  two  of 
them,  the  forty  shillings,  translated  into  dollars,  was  main 
tained  well  into  the  nineteenth  century. 

Iii  other  cases Jhe_fr^ehakLpassessed  by  the  voter  j&ustbe 
oLa  certain  value.*'  This  was  true  in  New  York  after  1699, 
where  the  freehold  must  be  of  the  value  of  forty  pounds,  and 
of  New  Hampshire  after  1728,  where  it  was  ten  pounds 
greater  than  in  New  York.  In  Rhode  Island  in  1723  the 
freehold  must  be  of  the  value  of  one  hundred  pounds  or  yield 
an  income  of  forty  shillings;  in  1730,  owing  to  the  deprecia 
tion  in  the  paper  currency,  this  was  changed  to  two  hundred 
pounds,  or  ten  pounds  income,  and  again  in  1746  both  of 
these  figures  were  doubled.  After  1 760  the  amount  was  ex 
pressed  as  forty  pounds  value  in  lawful  money,  or  a  forty- 
shilling  income.  South  Carolina  after  1745  permitted  free 
holders  in  towns  to  vote  if  they  possessed  sixty  pounds  value 
of  taxable  land  or  houses  in  towns. 

All  the  colonies  to  the  southward  of  New  York  expressed 
the  freehold  in  acres  or  lots  rather  than  in  value  or  income, 
as  was  the  case  in  New  England  and  New  York.  In  New 
Jersey  after  1702  the  minimum  amount  where  no  personal 
property  was  held,  was  one  hundred  acres ;  in  Pennsylvania, 
after  some  slight  changes,  it  was  fixed  at  fifty  acres,  twelve 
of  which  must  be  cleared,  and  Delaware  had  an  identical 
provision;  while  Maryland  after  1670  also  required  fifty 
acres.  Virginia  up  to  1736  had  expressed  no  legal  size  for 
the  freehold,  but  after  that  year  the  voter  could  qualify  by 
virtue  of  one  hundred  acres  of  unsettled  land,  or  twenty- 
five  acres  with  a  house  and  settled  plantation,  or  a  house 
or  lot  in  some  legally  established  town.  In  1762  this  was 
changed  to  fifty  acres  of  unsettled  land,  and  the  house  either 
on  plantation  or  in  town  must  be  at  least  twelve  feet  square. 
North  Carolina  after  1735  possessed  the  fifty  acres  quali 
fication,  and  Georgia  had  the  same  provision  imposed  upon 
her  by  royal  instructions  in  1754.  South  Carolina  from  at 
least  1704  had  the  fifty  acres  provision  in  connection  with 
other  qualifications.  In  1745  this  was  elaborated  into  a 


480     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

settled  plantation,  or  three  hundred  acres  of  unsettled  land, 
or  sixty  pounds  value  in  taxable  houses  and  lands  in  towns ; 
but  in  1759  the  three  hundred  acres  were  reduced  to  one 
hundred.  Thus,  immediately  before  the  Revolution,  from 
New  Jersey  to  Georgia  the  freehold,  with  one  exception  in 
South  Carolina,  was  expressed  in  acres  of  land;  in  six 
colonies  the  size  was  fixed  at  fifty  acres,  with  other  options 
in  Virginia;  while  in  New  Jersey  and  South  Carolina,  one 
of  the  requirements  was  one  hundred  acres  of  freehold.  In 
Georgia  and  North  Carolina  the  fifty  acres  freehold  was  the 
sole  property  qualification  for  the  suffrage  at  the  close  of 
the  colonial  period;  in  all  the  other  colonies  the  acres  of 
freehold  were  linked  with  other  alternatives,  such  as  dif 
ferent  forms  of  freehold,  as  in  Virginia  and  South  Caro 
lina,  or  personal  property  requirements,  as  in  New  Jersey, 
Pennsylvania,  Delaware  and  Maryland,  or  the  payment  of 
taxes,  as  in  South  Carolina. 

C.  At  the  close  of  the  colonial  period  a  freehold  of  some 
size  or  value  was  required  of  voters  in  seven  colonies :  New 
Hampshire,  Rhode  Island,1  New  York,  New  Jersey,  Vir 
ginia,  North  Carolina  and  Georgia.  In  the  six  other  colo 
nies  there  were  alternatives  to  the  real  estate  qualification  in 
the  form  of  the  holding  of  personal  property  or  the  payment 
of  taxes.  The  forty-shilling  income  from  freehold  was,  in 
Massachusetts  and  Connecticut,  paralleled  by  a  personal 
property  requirement  of  forty  pounds ; 2  and  the  same 
amount  of  personal  property  was  placed  upon  a  parity  with 
fifty  acres  of  land  in  Delaware  and  Maryland.  Pennsylvania 
made  fifty  acres  of  land  and  fifty  pounds  value  of  personal 
estate  equivalent  terms.  New  Jersey  after  1705  and  New 
Hampshire  between  1699  and  1728  possessed  an  unusual 
qualification,  which  permitted  freeholders  to  vote  if  they  did 
not  possess  the  requisite  freehold,  but  instead  owned  fifty 
pounds  value  of  personal  estate,  together  with  any  amount, 
however  small,  of  freehold  land.  South  Carolina,  also,  from 
1704  to  1721,  had  a  personal  property  qualification  at  first  of 

1  With  the  exception  of  the  eldest  sons  of  freeholders,  who  could 
vote,  although  not  themselves  possessing  real  estate. 

*  I  have  taken  here  the  colonial  interpretation  of  the  Massachusetts 
charter  of  1691. 


Conclusion.  481 

ten,  and  later  of  fifty  pounds,  as  equivalent  to  the  fifty  acres 
of  land. 

D.  At  the  time  of  the  Revolution  only  one  colony, — South 
Carolina, — retained  the  tax-paying  feature  of  the  suffrage  re 
quirements.  In  that  colony  by  the  law  of  1721  persons  pay 
ing  twenty  shillings  in  taxes  were  permitted  to  vote.  This 
was  discontinued  in  1745,  but  in  1759  the  principle  was  again 
adopted,  and  the  amount  of  taxes  necessary  to  qualify  the 
voter  was  reduced  from  twenty  to  ten  shillings.  A  similar 
practice  of  conditioning  political  privileges  upon  the  payment 
of  taxes  is  found  at  one  time  or  another  in  other  colonies.  As 
early  as  1656  in  Virginia  the  principle  is  affirmed;  from 
1715  to  1735  it  is  the  sole  basis  for  the  suffrage  in  North 
Carolina;  and  in  1664  tax-paying  in  an  excessive  amount 
was  required  of  non-church-members  who  desired  to  be  ad 
mitted  as  freemen  in  Massachusetts. 

7.  Frcemanship  in  Corporations.  The  manner  in  which 
the  English  theory  of  corporations  received  a  wide  political 
interpretation  in  America  has  been  seen  already  in  the  studies 
of  the  charter  colonies;  and  in  the  summary  just  made,  the 
qualifications  required  of  freemen  in  those  colonies  have  been 
grouped,  where  possible,  under  similar  headings  with  the 
qualifications  of  voters  in  other  colonies.  But  in  addition  to 
the  requirements  already  given,  the  corporation  colonies  had 
practices  in  the  admission  of  their  freemen  which  virtually 
amounted  to  further  qualifications  upon  the  suffrage.  One 
of  the  most  general  of  such  features  is  the  taking  of  an  oath, 
a  "  charge,"  or  an  "  engagement"  of  fidelity  to  the  govern 
ment.  This  custom  was  practically  universal  in  the  New 
England  corporations,  and  in  Rhode  Island  and  New  Haven, 
even  existed  in  the  separate  towns  before  they  were  incor 
porated  into  larger  unions.  Another  frequent,  but  not  uni 
versal,  custom  was  that  requiring  the  candidate  for  the  fran 
chise  to  pass  a  period  of  probation  after  his  name  had  been 
proposed  and  before  he  was  formally  accepted  as  a  freeman. 
Plymouth  originated  this  custom  at  least  as  early  as  1636  by 
requiring  those  proposed  at  one  court  to  "  stand  propounded" 
until  the  next  court;  and  in  1658  this  was  changed  to  a 
whole  year's  probation.  Connecticut  after  1662  required  a 
six  months'  probation,  and  Rhode  Island,  after  1762  had  the 

31 


482     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

shorter  term  of  three  months.  Massachusetts  never  adopted 
the  probation  plan  except  from  1673  t°  1683  for  applicants 
who  were  not  church-members. 

Still  another  restriction  upon  freemen  was  the  requirement 
in  Connecticut  and  Massachusetts  that  the  candidates  present 
certificates  from  the  civil  or  ecclesiastical  authorities  of  the 
town  that  they  possessed  the  desired  moral  or  property  quali 
fications.  But  more  interesting  than  this,  was  the  Plymouth 
rule  of  1656  that  applicants  for  the  provincial  freedom  must 
first  have  been  approved  for  that  honor  by  the  freemen  of  the 
town  in  which  they  dwelt,  and  later  proposed  by  the  town 
deputies  to  the  court.  This  virtually  left  the  control  of  the 
freemanship  with  the  body  of  existing  freemen  in  each  town. 
Similar  perhaps  in  theory,  but  different  in  practice,  was  the 
/Rhode  Island  distinction  between  town  freemen  and  colony 
freemen.  In  this  colony,  after  a  period  of  town  control  of 
the  subject,  the  legislature  imposed  various  qualifications 
upon  the  freemen  of  the  towns,  and  having  fulfilled  these  re 
quirements  for  the  town  freedom,  a  man  could  gain  the  colo 
nial  franchise  as  a  matter  of  form.  The  most  remarkable  of 
all  the  colonial  suffrage  qualifications  is  also  to  be  found  in1 
Rhode  Island,  where,  after  1723,  the  political  power  of  the 
freeman-freeholder  included  not  only  himself,  but  his  eldest 
son  as  well  if  the  latter  were  of  legal  age.  The  latter  could 
be  admitted  to  the  town  and  colonial  franchise  by  virtue  of 
his  birth,  in  a  manner  similar  to  that  in  which  the  freedom  of 
certain  English  municipalities  could  be  gained. 

8.  Qualifications  Similar  to  the  English  Borough  Fran 
chise.  The  details  of  suffrage  qualifications  heretofore  men 
tioned  may  all  be  held  to  correspond  to  the  county  franchise 
in  England.  It  is  true  that  the  New  England  colonies  were 
political  corporations  differing  but  little  in  their  origin  from 
the  various  municipal  political  corporations  of  England ;  but 
the  manner  in  which  the  franchise  was  exercised  in  these 
colonies  conforms  closely  to  the  county  suffrage  in  England. 
It  must  be  remembered,  too,  that  a  distinct  town  franchise 
was  not  greatly  needed  in  those  colonies  which  possessed  a 
personal  property  alternative  to  the  freehold  requirement; 
or,  where,  in  Virginia  or  South  Carolina,  the  size  or  value  of 
freehold  was  so  stated  that  it  would  admit  to  the  franchise 


Conclusion.  483 

many  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  towns.  But  in  addition  to 
such  general  provisions,  there  are  some  cases  of  the  formal 
adoption  of  the  English  borough  franchise. 

QarQ4ina;  to  a  greater  degree  than  in  any  other 


colony,  was  the  distinction  between  the  county  and  the  town 
franchise  elaborated,  and  in  that  colony  also  the  variety  of 
suffrage  provisions  gave  an  opportunity  for  partisan  election 
eering  in  the  boroughs.  The  voters'  qualifications  in  the 
nine  towns  varied  among  the  towns  and  at  different  times  in 
the  same  town.  In  one  case  all  who  happened  to  be  present 
at  the  election,  without  respect  to  residence  or  ownership  of 
property,  had  the  right  to  vote.  While,  in  most  cases,  the 
town  suffrage  was  extended  to  those  who  occupied  a  house  of 
lawful  size  in  the  town,  or  who  were  owners  of  unoccupied 
houses,  yet  there  are  instances  of  the  limitation  of  the  bor 
ough  franchise  to  freeholders  alone.  Thus  the  qualifications 
varied  from  mere  residence  in  the  town,  to  the  tenancy  of  a 
house,  or  to  the  possession  of  a  freehold  within  the  town  lim 
its.  In  the  main,  however,  the  qualifications  of  voters  in 
these  towns  conformed  to  those  of  the  inhabitant-house 
holder  boroughs  of  England. 

The  same  statement  is  true  of  the  towns  of  Perth  Amboy, 
Burlington  and  Salem  in  New  Jersey,  of  Williamsburg  and 
Norfolk  in  Virginia,  and  of  Annapolis  in  Maryland;  in  all 
of  which  the  voter  must  be  a  freeholder  or  an  inhabiting 
householder  of  the  town.  St.  Mary's,  in  Maryland,  on  the 
other  hand,  possessed  the  narrow  corporation  franchise,  in 
which  the  officers  were  as  open  to  corruption  as  they  were  in 
the  similar  towns  of  England.  The  English  freeman-bor 
ough  franchise  also  finds  its  exact  counterpart  in  the  elections 
by  freemen  of  the  corporations  of  the  cities  of  New  York  and 
Albany.  In  these  places  the  freemanship  was  acquired  by 
apprenticeship  or  purchase,  and  was  linked  to  a  residence  re 
quirement  of  three  months  after  securing  the  freedom  in  New 
York  City,  and  of  six  weeks  in  Albany.  Thus  in  the  bor 
ough  suffrage,  as  in  the  county  franchise,  the  force  of  Eng 
lish  precedent  is  everywhere  apparent.  The  English  freeman 
borough,  the  householder-inhabitant  borough,  the  corpora 
tion  borough,  all  have  their  counterparts  in  America. 

9.  The  University  Franchise.    Only  one  instance  has  been 


484     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

found  of  the  extension  to  America  of  the  principle  which 
gave  political  representation  to  institutions  of  learning.  This 
is  the  case  of  the  College  of  William  and  Mary  in  Virginia, 
where  the  president  and  six  masters  possessed  the  right  of 
choosing  a  member  of  the  house  of  burgesses.  New  Eng 
land,  with  all  her  respect  for  education,  never  put  political 
power  within  the  control  of  her  colleges. 

^  The  preceding  summary  makes  it  apparent  that  English 
j  customs  and  precedents  exercised  a  determining  influence 
S  upon  the  qualifications  of  voters  in  the  colonies.  Local  con- 
Editions  sometimes  suggested  or  compelled  variations  from  the 
English  customs,  but  such  divergences  were  rarely  so  vital  as 
to  impair  the  true  nature  of  the  suffrage  as  an  English  prac 
tice.  In  two  ways  these  English  customs  came  into  colonial 
electkjns;  first  by  the  natural  and  perhaps  unconscious  adher 
ence  of  the  colonists  to  the  forms  already  familiar  to  them; 
and,  secondly,  by  the  determined  effort  of  the  English  author 
ities  to  place  the  colonial  suffrage  upon  a  basis  similar  to  that 
in  England.  Thus,  consciously  or  unconsciously,  the  elective 
system  was  brought  into  conformity  to  English  ideas.  Of 
the  old  world  qualifications,  those  of  age  and  sex  seem  to 
have  been  adopted  most  readily  in  the  colonies ;  while  those 
of  property  were  changed  in  many  ways  to  adapt  them  to  the 
new  conditions. 

At  the  outset  the  suffrage  in  most  of  the  colonies  con 
formed  to  the  voters'  qualifications  in  the  English  towns 
rather  than  to  the  freehold  requisite  of  the  English  county. 
Thus  in  New  England, — where  the  feeling  of  community 
membership  was  strengthened  by  the  church  system,  by  the 
town  life  and  by  the  precedent  of  the  charter  of  the  Massa 
chusetts  Bay  Company, — the  freeman  principle  of  the  Eng 
lish  boroughs  became  the  basis  of  the  suffrage.  In  the  south 
ern  colonies,  on  the  other  hand,  while  the  word  freeman  was 
occasionally  used  in  a  sense  referring  to  membership  in  the 
colony,  the  term  soon  lost  the  intensely  exclusive  meaning 
which  made  it  so  valuable  to  the  New  England  Puritan.  It 
came  to  be  identified  with  the  word  inhabitant,  and  thus  the 
early  suffrage  in  Virginia,  Maryland  and  the  Carolinas  is 


Conclusion. 

similar  to  the  franchise  in  those  English  towns  where  all 
adult  male  housekeepers  participated  in  elections.  In  the 
middle  colonies  this  early  phase  is  not  apparent.  But  in  the 
south  and  in  New  England  the  holding  of  land  came  to  be 
the  sole  qualification,  or  an  alternative  one  with  the  owner 
ship  of  personal  property.  And  in  this  process  the  borough 
basis  of  freemanship  or  inhabitancy  gave  place  to  the  owner 
ship  of  property;  that  is,  a  qualification  akin  to  the  county 
franchise  in  England. 

It  has  been  held  1  that  this  movement  toward  higher  quali 
fications  and  a  restricted  suffrage  came  upon  the  demand  of 
the  English  government;  and,  indeed,  as  we  shall  see,  the 
weight  of  English  authority  was  almost  uniformly  in  favor 
of  a  property  qualification.  But  before  commenting  upon  the 
efforts  of  the  home  government  in  this  direction,  it  should  be 
noted  that  there  are  indications  of  a  similar  spirit  among  the 
colonists  themselves.  Thus  Connecticut  in  1657  and  1659 
imposed  a  property  qualification  upon  freemen  and  voting  in 
habitants;  in  1658  Massachusetts  required  non-freemen  vot 
ing  in  town  meetings  to  possess  twenty  pounds  value  of  taxa 
ble  property;  Maryland,  as  early  as  1666,  shows  evidence  of 
a  tendency  toward  government  by  freeholders ;  and  Virginia 
in  1670  adopted  a  restrictive  clause.  Thus  with  the  growth 
of  population  and  the  removal  of  the  frontier  from  the  coast 
plains,  property-holding  and  non-property-holding  classes 
became  distinct;  vested  interests  arose;  and  these  in  turn 
demanded  a  political  interpretation  of  their  favored  position. 
It  is  probable,  under  the  prevailing  seventeenth  and  eigh 
teenth  century  political  ideals,  that  a  restricted  suffrage 
would  have  been  adopted  throughout  the  colonies  even  if  the 
English  government  had  not  endeavored  to  obtain  the  same 
end.  But  that  the  restriction  took  the  frequent  form  of  a 
freehold  qualification,  especially  in  the  forty-shilling  pro 
vision,  is  due  in  very  large  degree  to  the  influence  of  the 
English  government. 

This  influence  is  seen  first  of  all  in  the  royal  charters  to 
proprietors,  in  which,  with  the  exception  of  that  to  the  Duke 
of  York,  distinct  provision  is  made  for  representative  assem- 

1  Bishop,  History  of  Elections  in  American  Colonies,  72. 


486     The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 

blies.  The  Maryland,  the  Carolina  and  the  Pennsylvania 
charters  mention  assemblies  elected  by  the  freemen  or  by  the 
freeholders,  and  thus,  although  no  distinction  is  made  be 
tween  them,  two  of  the  features  of  the  English  franchise  are 
imposed  upon  these  colonies.  But  a  more  definite  control  of 
the  franchise  is  obtained  in  the  royal  provinces,  where  the 
authority  of  the  English  government  is  almost  uniformly 
used  to  limit  the  suffrage  to  freeholders.  The  earliest  in 
stance  noticed  of  this  policy  is  found  in  the  instructions  of 
1676  to  Governor  Berkeley  of  Virginia,  which  directed  him 
to  "  take  care  that  the  members  of  the  assembly  be  elected 
only  by  ffreeholders,  as  being  more  agreeable  to  the  custome 
of  England/'  After  that  date,  the  same  policy,  often  in  the 
same  words,  was  copied  in  the  instructions  of  the  govern 
ors  of  Virginia  and  other  colonies.  So  general  was  the  in 
sertion  of  this  clause  after  1689  that  it  may  be  called  uni 
versal.  It  appears  in  New  Hampshire  in  1682  after  the 
remarkable  suffrage  acts  of  the  Cutt  assembly ;  in  New  York 
it  is  found  in  1689  in  the  instructions  to  Governor  Slaughter ; 
and  in  New  Jersey,  the  Carolinas  and  Georgia  it  appears  in 
all  the  royal  instructions  or  commissions  from  the  beginning 
of  the  royal  government  in  each  case.  The  policy  thus  laid 
down  was  not  weakly  administered;  and  it  is  to  be  noted 
that  in  all  the  seven  royal  governments,  \vith  the  exception  of 
a  subordinate  clause  enfranchising  certain  tax-payers  in  South 
Carolina,  the  suffrage  was  strictly  limited  to  freeholders. 
The  personal  property  alternatives  are  to  be  found  either  in 
boroughs  in  these  royal  provinces,  or  in  the  general  provi 
sions  of  the  three  proprietary  provinces  and  the  charter  colo 
nies  of  Massachusetts  and  Connecticut. 

In  addition  to  this  continuous  policy  of  the  English  gov 
ernment,  there  were  occasions  upon  which  more  particular  at 
tention  was  paid  to  the  suffrage  in  certain  colonies.  An  in 
stance  of  this  is  seen  in  the  instructions  to  the  parliamentary 
commissioners  sent  to  reduce  the  Chesapeake  Bay  settlements 
during  the  Commonwealth  period,  directing  them  to  exclude 
from  the  suffrage  those  who  would  not  swear  to  support  the 
new  English  administration.  But  a  much  more  noted  case  is 
that  of  the  Stuart  commissioners  to  New  England  in  1664. 
The  account  of  their  duties  and  acts  has  already  been  given. 


Conclusion.  487 

As  a  result  of  their  labors  the  Massachusetts  law  of  1664  ad 
mitting  non-church-members  was  passed;  Rhode  Island 
adopted  the  very  words  of  the  commissioners  in  its  suffrage 
law ;  and  the  influence  of  the  commission  was  felt  in  Con 
necticut  and  Plymouth.  Similar  instances  of  English  inter 
ference  with  the  suffrage  franchise  have  been  noticed  in  New 
Jersey,  in  North  Carolina  and  in  Georgia ;  and  the  policy  is 
summed  up  in  1767  in  a  circular  instruction  to  the  governors 
of  all  the  royal  provinces  directing  them  to  give  assent  to  no 
law  altering  the  number  of  members  of  the  legislature  of 
their  colonies,  or  the  time  of  continuance  of  the  assembly,  or 
changing  the  qualifications  of  electors  or  elected.1  It  is  evi 
dent  that  throughout  the  colonial  period  the  English  authori 
ties  took  a  deep  interest  in  the  question  of  the  colonial  suf 
frage,  and  uniformly  used  their  influence  in  favor  of  the 
freehold  qualification. 

In  closing,  reference  may  be  made  to  the  figures  obtained 
showing  the  size  of  the  voting  class.  In  Virginia  in  several 
elections  between  1744  and  1772  there  appeared  to  be  about 
nine  per  cent,  of  the  white  population  actually  participating 
as  electors.  In  New  York  City,  in  the  elections  of  1735, 
1761  and  1769  the  actual  voters  numbered  about  eight  per 
cent,  of  the  population.  In  Pennsylvania  the  tax-list  figures 
give  only  potential  voters,  but  they  show  about  eight  per  cent, 
of  the  rural  population  qualified  for  the  suffrage,  and  only 
two  per  cent,  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia,  a  condition  quite  in 
contrast  to  that  of  New  York  City.  In  New  England  the 
actual  voters  appear  to  be  less  proportionately  than  in  the 
middle  and  southern  colonies.  Massachusetts,  for  instance, 
shows  only  one  person  in  fifty  as  taking  part  in  elections,  and 
Connecticut,  in  elections  immediately  preceding  the  Revolu 
tion,  had  about  the  same  proportion.  In  Rhode  Island  the 
freemen  or  potential  voters  numbered  only  nine  per  cent,  of 
the  population.  These  figures  are  entirely  too  few,  and  too 
scattered  in  time  and  territory,  to  justify  any  accurate  gener 
alization  from  them.  The  potential  voters  seem  to  vary  from 
one-sixth  to  one-fiftieth  of  the  population,  and  the  actual 

1N.  J.  Archives,  IX,  637  (July  24,  1767)- 


.88     77*£  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies. 


voters  show  almost  an  equal  variation;  Massachusetts  and 
Connecticut  showing  at  times  only  two  per  cent,  of  actual 
voters  among  a  population  where  perhaps  sixteen  per  cent, 
were  qualified  electors;  and  New  York  City  and  Virginia 
showing  the  far  larger  proportion  of  eight  per  cent,  of  the 
population  as  actual  voters.  At  best,  however,  the  colonial 
elections  called  forth  both  relatively  and  absolutely  only  a 
small  fraction  of  the  present  percentage  of  voters.  Property 
qualifications,  poor  means  of  communication,  large  election 
districts  and  the  absence  of  party  organization  combined  to 
make  the  most  sharply  contested  elections  feeble  in  their 
effects  upon  the  community  as  compared  with  the  widespread 
suffrage  of  the  twentieth  century. 


INDEX 


Abjuration,  oath  of,  in  Del.,  270. 

Acadians,  presence  of,  probable 
cause  of  disfranchisement  of 
Catholics  in  S.  C,  158. 

Acrelius,  account  of  elections  in 
Pa.,  285. 

Actual  voters,  number  of,  in 
Mass.,  356-357. 

Admission,  of  inhabitants  to  towns 
on  Long  Island,  192;  in  N.  Y. 
under  Duke's  Laws,  203-204;  of 
partners  in  Plymouth,  303  note; 
of  freemen  in  Mass.,  302-304 ; 
terms  of,  308;  in  distant  towns, 
309;  of  freemen,  328-329;  into 
Plymouth  partnership,  340 ;  into 
freemanship,  341 ;  of  inhabi 
tants,  342-343;  of  inhabitants 
to  towns  in  Mass.,  363;  to 
towns  in  N.  H.,  378;  to  towns 
in  Conn.,  383-385;  refusal  to 
grant,  385 ;  of  freemen,  by  local 
officers,  413;  of  inhabitants,  421. 

Agamenticus,  Maine,  city  govern 
ment  in,  350. 

Age,  as  qualification  of  electors, 
in  England,  2 ;  origin  of  legal 
age,  2  note;  twenty-one  years 
in  Va.,  35 ;  twenty-one  years  in 
N.  C,  92,  in  ;  twenty-one  years 
in  S.  C,  140,  146,  153,  155,  157; 
twenty-one  years  in  Ga.,  172 ;  in 
N.  Y.,  twenty-one  years,  212; 
in  Del.,  twenty-one  years,  270 ; 
in  Pa.,  twenty-one  years,  275, 
279,  282 ;  in  Mass.,  twenty-one 
years,  310;  in  Mass.,  twenty- 
four  years  in  case  of  certain 
town  electors,  318;  under  law 
of  1664,  twenty-four  years,  324; 
town  elections,  twenty-four 
years,  362 ;  in  Plymouth  militia 
elections,  twenty  years,  366 ;  in 
N.  H.,  in  1680,  twenty-four 
years,  374;  in  1682,  twenty-one 
years,  375 ;  in  Conn.,  twenty-one 
years,  386,  388,  408;  in  colonies 
generally,  474. 


Albany,  N.  Y.,  suffrage  in,  222- 
223. 

Aliens,  as  electors  in  S.  C.,  132, 
135,  137,  138,  141 ;  excluded 
from  assembly,  141. 

Alms,  persons  receiving  such  dis 
franchised  in  England,  n;  but 
may  vote  in  some  towns,  15. 

Altona,  Del.,  267. 

Amsterdam,  obtains  settlement  on 
Delaware,  263 ;  inducements  to 
settlers,  264 ;  all  Delaware  lands 
ceded  to,  265 ;  government  of 
colony,  267. 

Andros,  Sir  Edmund,  as  governor 
of  N.  Y.,  claims  authority  in 
N.  J.,  237 ;  in  Mass.,  334 ;  arrest 
of,  335;  in  N.  H.,  375,  377;  in 
Conn.,  412. 

Anglican  party  in  S.  C.,  influence 
elections,  136. 

Annapolis,  Md.,  elections  in,  72.    f 

Annuities,  as  freeholds  in  Eng-» 
land,  9. 

Antinomians  in  Mass.,  307. 

Apprentices,  as  electors  in  S.  C., 
147;  excluded,  148;  in  Mass.j 
to  be  admitted  as  town  inhabi 
tants,  363  note  2 ;  copied  by  N. 
H.,  in  1718  and  1719,  378;  as 
town  inhabitants,  in  R.  I.,  468. 

Aquedneck,  R.  I.,  settlement  of, 
433;  agreements  among  in 
habitants,  ibid. 

Archdale,  John,  governor  of  N. 
C,  90;  of  S.  C,  134. 

Aristocracy,  in  Mass.,  304. 

Artisan  class  in  S.  C,  156;  as 
electors  in  Pa.  under  laws  made 
in  England,  275;  disfranchised 
in  Pa.,  292. 

Assembly,  first  representative  in 
America,  19-21  ;  first  in  Caro 
lina,  84,  85 ;  biennial,  in  N.  C, 
88,  97,  98 ;  a  grievance  in  N.  C, 
99;  at  Hemptead,  L.  I.,  called 
by  Col.  Nicholls,  198;  suffrage 
for,  ibid. ;  promulgates  Duke's 
489 


49° 


Index. 


Laws,  198 ;  irregular,  in  N.  J., 
234 ;  in  West  Jersey  exercises 
wide  powers  in  election  of  offi 
cers,  even  of  governor,  247; 
number  of  members  of,  in  N.  J., 
249;  number  of  members  of,  in 
Del.,  270. 

Association,  revolutionary,  in  S. 
C.  in  1719,  150;  Protestant,  in 
Md.,  69. 

Associators.     See  Regulators. 

Attendance,  at  election,  required 
in  England,  3;  but  perhaps  not 
required  at  early  period,  3  note; 
may  not  have  been  required  in 
early  Va.,  22;  not  required  in 
Long  Island  towns,  192,  207 
note  4;  not  required  in  Mass., 
312  note;  not  required  in  R.  I., 
463-464.  See  also  Proxy 
Voting. 

Bacon's  Rebellion,  in  Va.,  32-33; 

effect  upon  suffrage,  ibid. 
Ballot,  in  English  universities,  16; 

a  grievance   therein,  ibid.;   use 

•  of  in  Virginia  Company,  18,  22 ; 
I  forbidden  in  Va.,  26 ;    or  "  sub 
scription"  in  Va.,  1655,  28;    es- 

•  tablished  in  N.  C,  92;    method 
"  of  collecting,  102;    abolished  in 

N.  C,  in  1760,  in;  desired  by 
Regulators,  113;  used  in  parish 
elections,  118,  but  forbidden  in 

f  1764,  119;   in  S.  C,  in  1669,  124; 

(  always  used  in  colony,  141 ;  ir 
regular,  to  be  invalid,  146;  in 
1716,  145;  in  1719,  151;  elector 
need  not  subscribe,  ibid.;  op 
posed  by  Governor  Glen,  154, 

•  156,  157;    used  in  West  Jersey, 
1  245 ;    provided  for  in  Del.,  270 ; 
I  description  of,  271 ;   in  Pa.,  275  ; 
I  used    in    elections    in    Pa.,    but 

sometimes  neglected,  277;  beans 

used  in  taking,  ibid.;  opposition 

t  to,  278;    written,  282;    mode  of 

f  using,    283    note    5;     in    Mass., 

I   origin  of,  310-312;    beans  used 

in,  312;    paper  ballots,  ibid.;  in 

Plymouth,    349    note;     used    in 

Mass,  town  elections,  361 ;    and 

in  militia  elections,  365  note  4; 

in  New  Haven,  397;  in  Conn., 

effect  of  charter  of  1662  upon, 

407;  in  Conn.,  407,  411,  413,  416- 


417;  in  R.  I.  towns,  437;  in 
R.  I.,  442-443;  corruption  of, 
443 ;  under  charter  of  1663,  447, 
463-467 ;  sick  electors  may  send, 
464 ;  those  received  in  town 
meetings  must  be  signed,  464- 
465 ;  irregularities  concerning, 
465;  must  be  given  in  town 
meetings  and  not  at  Newport, 
466. 

Ballot-box  in  N.  C.  described, 
102;  in  S.  C.,  141,  146;  in  West 
Jersey,  246;  in  Del,  described, 
271 ;  mentioned  in  Pa.,  277 ;  a 
hat  used  for,  278;  use  of,  in 
Pa.,  282;  frauds  of,  285. 

Baltimore,  Lord,  charter  to,  48. 

Banishment  a  punishment  for  re 
ligious  offences  in  Mass.,  307. 

Baptists  in  Mass.,  measures 
against,  320-321 ;  disfranchised, 
in  colonies  generally,  475. 

Barbadoes,  proxy  voting  in,  141 
note;  laws  of,  a  precedent  for 
S.  C.  legislation,  145  note. 

Barclay,  Robert,  Quaker  apologist, 
governor  of  East  Jersey,  239. 

Bath,  England,  borough  suffrage 
in,  16. 

Bath,  town  in  N.  C,  suffrage  in, 
93,  no,  114;  law  respecting,  115. 

Baxter,  George,  of  Gravesend,  L. 
I.,  183. 

Beans  used  in  balloting  in  Pa.. 
277;  in  Mass.,  312;  in  New 
Haven,  397. 

Beaufort,  N.  C,  suffrage  in,  115. 
116. 

Bellomont,  Earl  of,  opposes  R.  I. 
ballot  system,  466  note  7;  op 
poses  R.  I.  militia  elections, 
470-471. 

Bergen,  N.  J.,  popular  meeting  in, 
189;  receives  charter  in  1661, 
227;  charter  of,  249  note. 

Berkeley,  Lord,  receives  grant  of 
N.  J.,  228. 

Berkeley,  Sir  William,  governor 
of  Va.,  29;  receives  new  in 
structions,  33;  one  of  Carolina 
proprietors,  82. 

Bicameral  system  in  Md.,  52. 

Blake,  Joseph,  chosen  governor  in 

s.  c,  133-134. 

Board  of  Trade,  English.  See 
Lords  of  Trade  and  Plantations. 


Index. 


491 


Boatmen  as  electors  in  Carnpbel- 
ton,  N.  C,  117. 

Borough  elections,  in  Pa.,  296- 
297. 

Borough  suffrage  in  England,  10- 
16;  in  Va.,  42-44;  in  Md.,  73; 
adopted  in  N.  C.  in  1715,  93; 
described,  114-117;  distin 
guished  from  county,  in  Pa., 
275;  in  colonies  generally,  482- 

483- 

Boston,  Mass.,  number  of  electors 
in,  355-356. 

Boys  as  electors  in  N.  C.,  91 ;  in 
Pa.,  285. 

Brent,  Mrs.  Margaret,  claims  a 
vote  in  Md.,  53-54,  473- 

Bribery  punished  in  England,  7. 
8;  in  Va.,  the  briber  disquali 
fied  to  sit  in  assembly,  35 ;  pun 
ished  in  N.  C,  102;  in  S.  C. 
147 ;  in  Del.,  270,  271 ;  fine  for, 
in  Pa.,  283;  in  R.  I.  every  free 
man  required  to  take  oath 
against,  459. 

Bristol,  England,  borough  suf 
frage  in,  14. 

Bristol,  Pa.,  called  a  town,  295 
note;  borough  charter  of  296- 
297;  town  meetings  in,  ibid. 

Brooklyn,  N.  Y.,  popular  meeting 
in,  189. 

Brunswick,  N.  C,  suffrage  in, 
116. 

Bulkeley,  Peter,  criticises  Conn, 
revolution  of  1689,  413;  esti 
mate  of  number  of  freemen,  419. 

Burgage  tenure  defined,  12;  quali 
fication  of  electors,  12 ;  number 
of,  13. 

Burgesses  in  New  Haven  to  be 
church-members,  392. 

Burlington,  N.  J.,  suffrage  in,  249 
and  note  3,  253,  255 ;  charter  of, 
256  note. 

Burrington,  George,  governor  of 
N.  C.,  explains  fundamentals. 
87,  90;  commission  of,  96; 
writs  of  election,  96;  desires 
repeal  of  N.  C.  suffrage  laws, 
97;  erects  new  precincts,  98. 

Byllinge,  Edward,  proprietor  of 
West  Jersey,  235,  244,  246. 

Calvert,  Charles,  Lord  Baltimore, 
63,  67. 


Calvert,  Leonard,  governor  of 
Md.,  49;  Mrs.  Brent  executrix 
of,  54- 

Cambridge,  University  of,  suf 
frage  in,  16. 

Campbelton,    N.    C,    suffrage    in, 

US- 

Cape  Fear  colony  in  Carolina,  85, 
122. 

Cape  Porpus,  Me.,  annexed  to 
Mass.,  352. 

Capitulation,  terms  of,  after  Eng 
lish  conquest  of  New  Nether- 
land,  197 ;  after  Dutch  conquest 
of  Swedes  on  Delaware,  261 ; 
on  Delaware  upon  surrender  to 
Duke  of  York,  265,  267. 

Carlisle,     borough     suffrage     in, 

14- 

Carolina,  division  into  colonies, 
84,  122. 

Carteret,  Philip,  governor  of  N. 
C,  88;  of  N.  J.,  231-234. 

Carteret,  Sir  George,  receives 
grant  of  N.  J.,  228. 

Cary,  Colonel,  influence  upon  suf 
frage  in  N.  C.,  91. 

Castle  Rising,  borough  suffrage 
in,  15. 

Catholics,  disfranchised  in  Eng 
land  during  Commonwealth 
period,  3;  probably  excluded 
after  1696,  4;  disfranchised  in 
Va.,  35;  disqualified  as  wit 
nesses,  35;  disfranchised  in 
Md.,  56,  58,  69,  71-72,  74;  in 
S.  C,  in  1759,  157,  158;  in  N. 
Y.  in  1689,  201 ;  in  1701,  214 ; 
in  N.  H.  in  1680,  374;  in  R.  I. 
in  1719,  451 ;  in  colonies  gen 
erally,  476 

Cavaliers,  influence  in  Va.,  30. 

Certificates,  required  of  electors, 
in  Mass.,  under  law  of  1664,  324 ; 
in  Mass.,  freemen  admitted 
upon,  328-329;  in  Plymouth, 
required  of  incoming  settlers, 
343 ;  required  of  electors  in 
Conn.,  404,  408,  413. 

Chamber  of  Accounts  of  Dutch 
West  India  Company,  favor 
representative  government  in 
New  Netherland,  177. 

Character,  good,  as  qualification 
of  electors  in  Pa.,  in  1682,  275 ; 
in  Mass,  town  elections,  318;  re- 


492 


Index. 


quired  in  king's  letter,  322,  323; 
adopted  in  law  of  1664,  324 ;  in 
Plymouth,  345,  347;  in  Mass. 
town  elections,  362;  in  N.  H., 
374 ;  in  Conn.,  387,  388,  408-409 ; 
towns,  422;  in  R.  I.,  448-449; 
colonies  generally,  476-477. 

Charles  II.,  correspondence  with 
Mass.,  322 ;  requires  repeal  of 
Mass,  freeman  law,  ibid.;  favors 
religious  liberty,  323. 

Charleston,  S.  C.,  all  elections 
held  therein,  137,  143-144;  op 
posed  by  proprietors,  144,  but 
later  favored  by  them,  ibid.; 
corporate  government  proposed 
for,  ibid.;  grand  jury  presents 
elections  therein  as  an  evil, 
ibid.;  abolished  by  law,  in  1716, 
145 ;  restored  by  proprietors, 
149;  again  abolished,  151;  eco 
nomic  opposition  to,  152;  in 
corporated  in  1783^  159. 

Charlestown,  Mass.,  town  suffrage 
in,  360 ;  rights  of  commonage 
in,  367. 

Charter,  of  Privileges  of  1618  in 
Va.,  18;  suffrage  in  the  Md., 
48;  suffrage  in  the  Carolina, 
80-81;  to  Duke  of  York,  196- 
197,  228;  town,  in  N.  J.,  249 
note;  of  privileges,  granted  by 
Penn,  269;  suffrage  in  Penn's, 
273;  Penn's  to  his  province  in 
1701,  281;  king's  to  Mass.  Bay 
Company  in  1629,  301-302 ;  for 
feited,  334;  to  Gorges,  350;  to 
Mass,  in  1691,  353-354;  am 
biguity  concerning  qualifications 
of  electors,  354;  to  Conn.,  402; 
analysis  of,  405 ;  abolished  re 
ligious  qualifications  of  New 
Haven,  406;  effect  upon  proxy 
voting,  407;  restoral  of  officers 
under,  in  1689,  412;  to  R.  I.  in 
1644,  439-440;  to  R.  I.  in  1663, 
446-448. 

Chester,  Pa.,  called  a  town,  295 
note;  borough  charter  of,  296- 
297;  town  meetings  in,  ibid. 

Chester  County,  Pa.,  petitions 
against  election  evils,  284,  285. 

Children,  excluded  from  militia 
elections,  in  Plymouth,  366. 

Chimneys,  significance  of,  in  bor 
ough  suffrage  in  N.  C,  94. 


Choristers,  as  electors  in  England, 
9- 

Christians,  as  electors,  in  S.  C, 
146,  153,  155;  in  Pa.  in  1682, 
275,  276;  in  R.  I.,  451. 

Christina,  Del.,  267. 

Church  attendance  in  Mass,  re 
quired  of  all  electors,  321. 

Church,  offices  in,  as  freeholds  in 
England,  9;  definition  of,  in 
Mass.,  306 ;  none  formed  with 
out  approbation,  ibid.;  organi 
zation  in  Mass.,  306;  condition 
of,  in  Mass,  in  1646,  316 ;  or 
ganization  of,  in  New  Haven, 
392-393  ;  controlled  by  govern 
ment,  396. 

Church  elections,  in  Mass.,  363- 
365;  in  N.  H.,  by  freeholders 
alone,  378 ;  by  tax-payers,  ibid. ; 
in  Conn.,  423-425.  See  also 
Parish  Elections. 

Churches,  elections  in  S.  C.  held 
in,  145- 

Church-members,  colony  franchise 
limited  to,  in  Mass.,  304 ;  Cotton 
favors  this  limitation,  305;  dif 
ficulty  of  defining  term,  305- 
306;  defined,  307;  Half- Way 
Covenant,  307;  reluctant  to  be 
come  freeman,  308;  Half- Way 
Covenant  not  adopted  in  politi 
cal  sense,  318-319;  Charles  II. 
opposes  exclusive  privileges  of, 
322-323;  effect  of  law  of  1664, 
324,  329;  Randolph  writes  con 
cerning,  331 ;  still  a  favored 
class  in  1690,  336 ;  but  not  after 
1691,  337;  in  Plymouth,  fran 
chise  limited  to,  346;  electors 
in  Conn.,  389 ;  electors,  in  New 
Haven,  390,  392 ;  excluded  when 
members  of  irregularly  organ 
ized  churches,  396 ;  all  encour 
aged  to  become,  402;  electors  in 
Conn,  church  elections,  425. 

Church-wardens,  election  of,  in 
Va.,  45 ;  managers  of  elections 
in  S.  C,  145. 

Cinque  ports,  representation  of,  2, 
4: 

Citizens  (inhabitants  of  a  city) 
as  electors  in  Maine,  351. 

Citizenship  as  qualification  of 
electors,  in  England,  3 ;  alien 
Huguenots  as  electors  in  S.  C, 


Index. 


493 


132 ;  their  naturalization 
favored,  134 ;  temporary  act 
passed,  134;  permanent  act, 
141  ;  in  Albany,  N.  Y.,  222, 
223;  in  Del.,  270;  in  Pa.  in 
1682,  276;  in  1694  free  deni 
zens,  279;  in  1705,  282;  in 
Mass.,  in  1664,  must  be  Eng 
lishmen,  324,  362 ;  in  N.  H., 
Englishmen,  374 ;  in  colonies 
generally,  474-475. 

City  elections  in  New  York  City 
under  charter  of  1683,  221  ; 
charter  of  1686,  221  ;  method  of 
obtaining  freedom,  221 ;  charter 
of  1730,  222;  parish  elections, 
224 ;  in  Albany,  N.  Y.,  222-223  ', 
in  Philadelphia,  Pa.,  298. 

Claiborne,  William,  parliamentary 
commissioner  in  Md.,  57. 

Clergymen,  excluded  from  Md. 
assembly,  71. 

Coddington,  William,  441. 

Colleton,  James,  governor  of  S.  C., 

131- 

Commissioners,  parliamentary,  in 
Md.,  57- 

Commissioners,  royal,  to  New 
England,  in  Mass.,  323-326;  in 
Plymouth,  347-348 ;  pleased  with 
Plymouth  government,  348 ;  in 
Conn.,  409-410;  in  R.  I.,  448- 

449- 

Commissioners,  town,  in  N.  C., 
elections  of,  117,  118. 

Commissions  of  royal  governors, 
with  their  instructions,  furnish 
suffrage  qualifications,  209. 

Committee  of  correspondence,  ap 
pointed  in  Ga.  in  1741,  167. 

Commoners,  as  electors,  in  N.  Y.. 
225 ;  in  Mass.,  358-359,  367-369  5 
in  Conn,  and  New  Haven,  426- 
429;  in  R.  I.,  436,  469. 

Common  land,  suffrage  concern 
ing.  See  Land  Matters. 

Common  Prayer,  Book  of,  Charles 
II.  commands  Mass,  to  grant 
liberty  to  use,  322 ;  in  Mass,  its 
use  forbidden,  325. 

Commonwealth,  Connecticut,  381. 

Commonwealth,  English,  engage 
ment  to  support,  required  of 
voters  in  Md.,  57 ;  proclaimed 
by  inhabitants  of  Long  Island, 
186  note. 


Communicants,  of  church,  as 
electors  in  Mass.,  319;  in  Conn., 
424. 

Compulsory  voting,  in  Va.,  21,  26- 
27,  36,  41 ;  in  Md.,  73-74 ;  in 
N.  C.  vestry  elections,  119;  in 
Del.,  270;  in  Mass.,  paralleled 
by  compulsory  freemanship, 
308;  in  Plymouth,  341,  348;  in 
R.  L,  450. 

Concessions  to  settlers  in  Caro- 
linas,  83,  123,  124 ;  in  N.  J.,  83 ; 
in  Ga.,  164 ;  in  New  Nether- 
land  in  1629,  174;  in  1661  to 
English  settlers,  186;  in  N.  J., 
228,  229 ;  interpretation  of,  234 ; 
in  West  Jersey  in  1677,  245,  246. 

Confederation,  of  towns  on  Rhode 
Island,  438. 

Congregationalism,  dangers  of,  in 
Mass.,  306;  theory  of,  306  note; 
opposed  by  Presbyterians,  314. 

Connecticut,  settlement  of  river 
towns,  380 ;  fundamentals  of 
1639,  381  ;  freemanship  and  suf 
frage  under  fundamentals,  382- 
384 ;  oath  of  freeman,  383  note; 
town  restrictions  upon  freemen, 
384-386 ;  delegation  of  power  to 
admit  freemen,  386;  restriction 
upon  colony  freemen,  387-389; 
number  of  freemen  admitted, 
387,  390 ;  religious  qualifications, 
389-390;  suffrage  in  New 
Haven,  390-405  (see  New 
Haven)  ;  charter  of  1662,  402, 
405-407 ;  union  with  New 
Haven.  402-405 ;  colonial  suf 
frage  limited  to  freemen,  406- 
407 ;  new  qualifications  of  elect 
ors,  £20  estate,  408;  many  new 
freemen,  408  ;  royal  commission 
ers  in,  409-410;  freemen's  oath, 
410;  means  to  prevent  election 
frauds,  410-411  ;  qualification  of 
£20  freehold  in  1673,  411;  of 
£10  freehold  in  1675,  412;  land 
assessments  in,  412;  Andros  and 
revolution  of  1689,  412;  forty- 
shilling  freehold  required  in 
1689,  413  ;  joined  with  £40  per 
sonal  estate  in  1702,  414;  elec 
tion  irregularities,  414 ;  mode  of 
admission  of  freemen,  415; 
proxy  system  of  balloting,  416, 
417:  nomination  of  candidates. 


494 


Index. 


417,  418;  number  of  electors, 
418-420;  local  suffrage,  420- 
429;  town  suffrage,  420-423; 
church  elections,  423-425 ; 
militia  elections,  425,  426;  suf 
frage  concerning  land  matters, 
426-429. 

Conscience,  liberty  of,  in  Md.,  57, 
58;  in  S.  C,  to  all  but  Papists, 
135;  in  N.  Y.,  197;  in  Conn., 
409,  410. 

Constables'  lists  of  taxables  used 
in  Pa.  by  officers  in  judging 
qualifications  of  electors,  285. 

Convention,  of  representatives 
among  N.  C.  Regulators,  113; 
revolutionary,  in  S.  C.  in  1719, 
150;  popular,  in  Ga.  in  1749, 
168;  in  Mass,  after  the  over 
throw  of  Andros,  335  ;  popular, 
in  Maine,  351;  in  N.  H.  in 

„  1690,  375- 

Conveyances,  fraudulent,  in  order 
to  qualify  voters  in  England,  8; 
punishment  for  making,  in  Va., 
39;  in  R.  L,  461. 

Convicts,  disfranchised  in^Va.,  41, 
477- 

Coode,  John,  revolutionist  in  Md., 
69. 

Copley,  Governor,  of  Md.,  70. 

Copyholders  cannot  vote  in  Eng 
lish  counties,  9;  permitted  in 
some  boroughs,  12. 

Cornbury,  Governor,  in  N.  J.,  250 ; 
indefinite  election  writs  issue.d 
by,  ibid. 

Corn  in  Mass,  used  in  balloting, 
312;  in  New  Haven,  397. 

Corporation  franchise,  restricted, 
in  England,  15, 16;  in  St.  Mary's 
in  Md.,  63;  used  for  partisan 
purposes,  63. 

Corporation,  town  proposed  in 
Carolinas,  82 ;  refused  by  pro 
prietors  as  opposed  to  rights  of 
people,  ibid.;  to  be  erected  at 
New  Amstel  on  Delaware  River, 
264. 

Corporations,  economic,  in  Ply 
mouth.  338-340 ;  in  Mass,  towns, 
357,  358,  367;  in  Conn,  towns, 
385 ;  in  New  Haven,  391 ;  in 
Conn,  towns,  426;  in  R.  I.,  431. 

Corporations,  self-originating, 
Plymouth,  338,  339;  in  Maine, 


351;  in  N.  H.,  371,  372;  in 
Conn.,  382 ;  in  New  Haven,  391 ; 
in  Conn.,  426;  in  R.  I.,  430-434. 

Coroners,  election  of,  in  Del.,  271 ; 
in  Pa.,  283,  295. 

Corruption  in  elections.  See  Ir 
regularities  in  elections. 

Cotton,  John,  opposes  democratic 
government,  304,  305;  antago 
nistic  to  Hooker,  380. 

Council  of  State,  English,  a  prece 
dent  for  Va.,  29. 

Counties,  in  Pa.,  origin  of,  294. 

County  courts,  powers  of,  in  Del., 
272 ;  in  Pa.,  295. 

County  elections,  in  N.  Y.,  218- 
220;  in  N.  J.,  255-256;  in  Pa., 
283. 

County  franchise  in  England,  5- 
10;  distinguished  from  borough 
in  Pa.,  275. 

County  government  in  Pa.  and 
Del.,  origin  of,  269. 

Courts,  local,  on  Delaware  River, 
266-268 ;  influence  upon  county 
organization  of  Pa.  and  Del., 
269. 

Covenant,  church,  in  early  Mass., 
306  note;  in  New  Haven,  392. 

Covenant,  Half- Way,  307,  318, 
319. 

Coventry,  borough  suffrage  in,  14. 

Coxe,  Daniel,  proprietor  of  West 
Jersey,  244. 

Craven,  Charles,  governor  of  S. 
C,  142. 

Cricklade,  borough  suffrage  in,  12. 

Criminals  as  electors  in  N.  C.,  no. 

Culpepper,  Lord,  commission  as 
governor  of  Va.,  34. 

Cultivation  of  lands  required  of 
voting  freeholders,  in  N.  J.,  239 ; 
in  Del.,  270;  in  Pa.,  276,  279, 
281,  282. 

Currency,  paper,  effect  upon  suf 
frage  qualifications  in  S.  C.,  147, 
148,  155;  in  Conn.,  414;  in  R.  I, 
456,  457,  459,  460. 

Cutt,  President,  of  N.  H.,  inter 
feres  with  suffrage,  373;  law 
concerning  suffrage  passed  by 
his  assembly,  374;  but  repealed 
by  king,  ibid. 

Daniel,  Robert,  governor  of  N.  C., 
90. 


Index. 


495 


Darby,  Pa.,  town  meetings  in,  293 
note;  called  a  town,  295  note. 

Davenport,  John,  in  New  Haven, 
gives  advice  concerning  govern 
ment,  391,  392. 

Delaware,  Lord,  possesses  arbi 
trary  power  in  Va.,  19. 

Delaware,  character  of  early  his 
tory,  259 ;  early  settlements  by 
Dutch,  English,  and  Swedes, 
259-261 ;  Dutch  conquest  of 
Delaware  lands,  261 ;  popular 
government  under  Dutch,  262, 
263 ;  colony  of  city  of  Amster 
dam,  263-265 ;  English  conquest, 
265  ;  terms  of  capitulation,  265  ; 
government  under  Duke  of 
York,  266;  extension  of  Duke's 
Laws  to,  266,  267 ;  court  system, 
267,  268;  absence  of  popular 
elections,  268;  ceded  to  Penn, 
269;  separation  from  Pa.,  269; 
election  act  of  1734,  270;  quali 
fications  of  electors,  270;  de 
scription  of  election,  271 ;  elec 
tions  of  sheriffs,  271 ;  local 
suffrage,  271,  272;  borough 
of  Wilmington,  272 ;  reasons 
for  separation  from  Pa.,  280, 
281. 

Democracy  to  be  avoided  in  Caro- 
linas,  85 ;  opposed  by  Cotton  in 
Mass.,  304 ;  unpopular  with 
Puritan  leaders,  305  ;  economic, 
tends  to  disappear,  369 ;  form 
of  government  on  R.  I.,  438 ; 
again  affirmed  in  1647,  440. 

Deputies  in  Plymouth,  how 
chosen,  344. 

Deserted  parishes  in  S.  C.,  how 
persons  could  vote  by  virtue  of 
land  therein,  147. 

Disfranchised  persons  fined  for 
voting  in  Va.,  35,  41  ;  in  N.  C, 
102;  in  Del.,  270;  in  Pa.,  282; 
vote  in  Philadelphia,  282;  in 
Pa.,  interfere  in  elections,  284- 
286 ;  number  of,  286 ;  in  Mass. 
in  1630,  303 ;  in  1635-1637,  307 ; 
must  take  oath,  309 ;  proportion 
of,  313 ;  sometimes  vote  ille 
gally,  ibid.;  growing  strength 
of,  314 ;  movement  for  political 
rights  in  1646,  314,  315;  re 
strictive  measures  against,  316, 
317;  Quakers,  Baptists,  and 


criticisers  of  church  laws  dis 
franchised,  320,  321 ;  Charles  II. 
takes  up  cause  of,  322,  323;  in 
Plymouth,  exist  in  1636,  342 ;  do 
not  show  discontent,  348;  in 
Conn.,  compared  with  Mass., 
381 ;  in  New  Haven,  vote  ille 
gally,  398 ;  size  of  disfranchised 
class,  ibid.,  demand  English 
laws,  399 ;  vote  illegally,  401 ; 
favor  Conn,  jurisdiction,  402. 

Disfranchisement,  in  Va.,  of  con 
victs,  41,  477;  for  political  rea 
sons  in  Md.,  59,  60;  in  N.  J.,  of 
those  who  refuse  to  re-patent 
their  lands,  233 ;  in  Mass.,  cases 
of,  for  religious  offences,  307; 
of  Quakers,  Baptists,  and  those 
criticising  church  laws,  320-321 ; 
of  those  not  attending  church, 
321 ;  in  Plymouth,  of  Quakers, 
and  their  sympathizers,  op 
ponents  of  established  church, 
liars,  drunkards,  etc.,  346^347 ; 
in  Conn.,  of  persons  convicted 
of  crime,  384  note;  in  Conn, 
causes  of,  408 ;  in  R.  I.,  of  those 
not  yielding  to  English  Com 
monwealth,  442 ;  for  refusing  to 
take  oaths,  448-449 ;  for  bribery, 
459;  for  election  frauds,  461, 
462  note. 

Dissenters,  as  electors  in  N.  C. 
parish  elections,  119;  excluded 
from  S.  C.  assembly,  138-139; 
attitude  of  Mass,  towards,  314- 
318,  320-321 ;  admitted  to  free 
dom  of  colony,  320 ;  favored  by 
Charles  II.,  322 ;  change  in  atti 
tude  toward,  330 ;  relieved  from 
payment  of  tithes,  364;  but  ex 
cluded  from  church  elections, 
ibid. 

District,  incorporated,  a  municipal 
unit  in  Pa.,  298-299. 

Districts,  election,  size  causes  in 
convenience  in  N.  J.,  250;  the 
counties  adopted  as,  253 ;  in  Pa., 
called  hundreds,  284  note  4. 

Dobbs,  Arthur,  governor  of  N.  C., 
instructions  to,  106-107 ;  brings 
on  confusion  in  elections,  109- 
no;  opposition  to  assembly, 
in. 

Dominion  of  New  England,  N.  J. 
included  in,  241. 


496 


Index. 


Dorchester,  Mass.,  ballot  used  in, 
361  note;  rights  of  commonage 
in,  367. 

Dover,  N.  H.,  settlement  of,  37,0; 
compact  of  settlers,  371;  re 
quests  union  with  Mass.,  372 ; 
number  of  voters  in,  373  note  4. 

Droitwich,    borough    suffrage    in, 

13- 

Drummond,  William,  governor  of 
Albemarle  County,  N.  C,  84. 

Duke's  Laws,  code  promulgated 
at  Hempstead,  L.  I.,  198; 
changed  slightly  by  later  legis 
lation,  208 ;  extended  to  upper 
Hudson  and  Delaware  settle 
ments,  208 ;  put  in  force  on 
Delaware,  266. 

Durham,  borough  suffrage  in,  14. 

Easthampton,  L.  L,  admission  of 
inhabitants,  204 ;  proxy  voting 
in,  210  note. 

East  Jersey,  separated  from  West 
Jersey,  235 ;  difficulties  with 
settlers  upon  Nicholls's  grants, 
236-237;  contest  with  New- 
York,  237 ;  demand  for  rights 
of  Englishmen,  237 ;  continued 
confusion,  238 ;  transfer  to 
Quaker  proprietors,  238-239 ; 
fundamental  constitutions,  239- 
240 ;  seventeenth  century  theory 
of  political  rights,  240;  funda 
mentals  not  enforced,  241  ;  at- 
temps  to  compel  re-patenting  of 
lands,  241-242 ;  revolutionary 
period,  242-243. 

Eaton,  Samuel,  392. 

Eaton,  Theophilus,  392. 

Economic  influence  upon  political 
development,  in  Carolinas,  84; 
in  S.  C.,  152. 

Edenton,  N.  C,  suffrage  in,  114, 
US- 

Education  as  qualification  of 
electors,  favored  in  N.  J.,  251. 

Eight  Men,  the,  in  New  Nether- 
land,  176. 

Elections,  personal  control  of,  in 
Va.,  24 ;  machinery  of,  in  Va., 
35,  36 ;  Hooker's  theory  of,  380. 

Elective  officers,  in  New  York 
City,  208. 

Electors,  rights  of,  as  interpreted 
by  N.  C.  Regulators,  113;  to  be 


free  from  civil  writs  in  S.  C., 
147. 

Elizabeth,  N.  J.,  origin  of  early 
patents,  231 ;  patentees  refuse 
to  re-patent  lands,  232;  refuse 
to  pay  quit-rents,  233;  general 
treatment  of  inhabitants,  238. 

England,  Church  of,  in  Mass.,  315  ; 
favored  by  Charles  II.  in 
quarrel  with  Mass.,  322;  for 
bidden  use  of  Prayer-Book,  325  ; 
rights  demanded  for,  326 ;  mem 
bers  not  disfranchised  in  Mass., 
3335  position  of  members,  337; 
in  N.  H.,  371 ;  in  Conn.,  mem 
bers  excluded  from  church  elec 
tions,  when  they  do  not  con 
tribute  to  support,  424. 

England,  laws  of,  as  precedents 
for  the  colonies,  7 ;  quoted  as 
justifying  property  qualification 
in  Va.,  31 ;  in  Md.,  66;  as  prece 
dent  for  opposing  proxy  system 
in  S.  C.,  131  ;  for  opposing  per 
sonal  property  qualifications, 
133;  for  opposition  to  aliens, 
136;  opposing  residence  restric 
tions,  149;  for  opposing  elective 
officers,  156;  demanded  in  Ga., 
167;  as  precedent  for  colonial 
legislation  in  N.  J.,  253;  desired 
by  agitators  in  Mass.,  314;  com 
pared  with  those  of  Mass.,  317; 
demanded  by  disfranchised  per 
sons  in  New  Haven,  399. 

England,  suffrage  in,  age  qualifi 
cation  of  electors,  2 ;  sex,  2 ; 
proxy  voting  illegal,  3 ;  citizen 
ship,  3 ;  oaths  and  political 
qualifications,  3 ;  position  of 
Catholics,  4 ;  the  county  fran 
chise,  5-10 ;  breadth  of  early  suf 
frage,  5  ;  restriction  of  1430,  5  ; 
residence  at  first  required  of 
elector,  later  discontinued,  6; 
proportion  of  non-resident 
voters,  6;  election  machinery, 
7-9;  laws  against  fraud,  8-9; 
extension  of  suffrage  by  multi 
plication  of  freeholds  and  by 
changing  meaning  of  term  free 
hold,  9 ;  borough  and  corpora 
tion  franchise,  10-16;  inhabi 
tant  franchise,  10-11;  potwal- 
loper  franchise,  n  ;  burgage  ten 
ure  franchise,  12;  freeman 


Index. 


497 


franchise,  13;  restricted  cor 
poration  franchise,  15;  univer 
sity  franchise,  16;  as  inter 
preted  by  New  Haven,  399. 
English  government,  influence  in 
favor  of  suffrage  qualifications, 

484-487. 

Englishmen,  petition  in  S.  C.  that 
suffrage  be  limited  to,  134 ;  on 
Long  Island,  peculiarly  favored 
by  Dutch  authorities,  185,  190, 
193;  as  electors,  in  Mass,  town 
elections,  362;  as  electors,  in 
N.  H.,  374- 

Englishmen,  rights  of,  interpreted 
by  East  Jersey  assembly  in  1680, 
237 ;  demanded  in  Mass,  in 
1646,  315. 

Exeter,  borough  suffrage  in,  14. 

Exeter,  N.  H.,  settlement  of,  370; 
compact  of  settlers,  ibid.;  num 
ber  of  voters  in,  373  note  4. 

Faggot  voters,  in  England,  9. 

Fairfield,  Conn.,  popular  move 
ment  in,  399. 

Families,  Heads  of.    See  Heads. 

Fendall,  Governor,  in  Md.,  59-60. 

Fenwick,  John,  in  West  Jersey, 
244,  245. 

Fletcher,  Governor,  of  Pa.,  atti 
tude  towards  suffrage,  278. 

Flushing,  L.  I.,  charter  of,  190, 
191 ;  suffrage  in,  206. 

Fort  Beversrede,  Dutch  settlement 
on  Schuylkill,  260. 

Fort  Casimir,  Dutch  settlement 
near  Newcastle,  Del.,  260;  262; 
name  changed  to  New  Amstel, 
263. 

Fort  Christina,  Swedish  settle 
ment  on  the  Delaware,  260. 

Fort  Nassau,  Dutch  settlement  in 
N.  J.,  260. 

Forty-shilling  freehold,  as  quali 
fication  of  electors,  in  England, 
i,  5,  6,  9;  origin  of,  in  English 
statute  of  1430,  5-6 ;  adopted  in 
N.  Y.  in  1683,  200;  the  legal 
qualification  in  N.  Y.  in  1691, 
210;  compared  with  Mass,  quali 
fication  of  1690,  336  note;  in 
Mass,  charter  of  1691,  354; 
adopted  in  N.  H.  in  1699,  376; 
in  Conn,  in  1689,  413;  in  R.  I., 
454,  460. 


Fractional  voting,  in  Va.,  40,  41 ; 

in  Southampton,  L.  L,  207  note; 

on  Long  Island,  225. 
Frame  of  government,  in  Pa.,  in 

1682,  274. 

Free,  qualification  of  electors  in 
N.  C,  92;  in  S.  C.  in  1719,  151 ; 
in  1721,  153;  in  1745,  155;  in 
1759,  157;  in  Ga.,  172. 

Free  men  as  electors,  in  England 
at  early  period,  5 ;  in  Va.,  21, 
29,  33 ;  in  Md.,  53  note,  55. 

Free  Society  of  Traders,  incor 
porated  by  Penn,  and  given 
manorial  powers,  294. 

Freedom,  of  English  towns,  how 
obtained,  14 ;  of  New  York  City, 
how  obtained,  220-222;  of  Al 
bany,  N.  Y.,  how  obtained,  222. 

Freehold,  definition  of,  in  Va.,  34, 
36;  in  N.  C.,  102;  in  N.  Y.,  in 

1683,  200,  213;    in   N.   J.,  diffi 
culty  of  determining,  231,  232; 
fixed  by  proprietors,  234;    in  R. 
I.,  461. 

Freehold,  extension  of  meaning  of 
in  England  leads  to  extended 
suffrage,  9. 

Freehold,  qualification  of  electors 
in  Va.,  31;  in  1676,  34;  in 

1684,  34;   of  100  acres  unsettled 
land,    or   25    acres    with    house 
and  plantation,  in  Va.,  1736,  38; 
lowered    to    50   acres    unsettled 
land  in  1762,  40;   in  Md.,  62,  71 ; 
in   Md.,    in  governor's   instruc 
tions,  70;    in  S.  C,  fifty  acres, 
148,  153;    three  hundred  acres, 
or    settled    plantation,   or   sixty 
pounds  value  in  town  lots,  155; 
reduced  to  one  hundred  acres  in 
1759,    157;     in    Ga.,   fifty  acres, 
170;    opposed  by  assembly,  172; 
established  by  law,  172;    in  N. 
Y.,  108,  199,  200,  201,  205-207; 
in  1691,  210;    in  1699,  changed 
to  forty  pounds  value,  212;    in 
county   elections,   219,   220;     in 
town  elections,  223;    in  N.  J.  in 
1665,  230 ;   in  1668,  232 ;   in  East 
Jersey    fundamentals    of    1683, 
fifty    acres,    ten    cultivated,    or 
house   and   three   acres   in  bor 
ough,  239 ;    in  West  Jersey,  247, 
248;    in  N.  J.  in  1702,  one  hun 
dred  acres,  249;    opposition  to, 


498 


Index. 


251 ;  amount  repealed,  252;  one 
hundred  acres  again  adopted, 
252 ;  finally  adopted  by  law,  254- 
255;  in  Del.,  fifty  acres,  twelve 
cleared,  270 ;  in  Pa.,  under  laws 
made  in  England,  275;  in  1682, 
276;  in  1693,  undefined  in 
Fletcher's  Frame,  278;  in  1694, 
fifty  acres,  ten  cleared,  279; 
twelve  cleared,  281 ;  in  Pa.,  pro 
posal  to  change  to  fifty  pounds 
value  of,  282;  fifty  acres  re 
tained,  ibid.;  in  Pa.  in  local 
elections,  295  note  7,  296;  in 
Mass.,  demanded  by  Charles  II. 
in  letter,  322;  under  law  of 
1664,  324;  in  1690,  336;  in 
Maine  by  Gorges's  charter,  350 ; 
in  Mass,  under  charter  of  1691, 
354;  in  Plymouth,  343;  in  N. 
H.  in  1680,  374;  in  1682,  375; 
not  strictly  enforced  after  1692, 
376;  fifty  pounds  value  in  1727, 
377 ;  required  of  electors  in 
town  elections,  378;  in  Conn., 
in  1673,  twenty  pounds  value, 
411;  forty  shilling  income,  in 
1689,  413 ;  town  elections,  422 ; 
in  R.  I.  in  1724,  £100  value  or 
40  shilling  income,  454 ;  in  1730 
£200  value,  or  £10  income  from, 
457;  must  be  held  continuously 
in  order  to  qualify  freemen,  458 ; 
in  1746,  £400  value  or  £20  in 
come  from,  459 ;  £40  value  or  40 
shillings  income,  460;  in  col 
onies  generally,  478-480. 

Freeholders  and  inhabitants,  in  N. 
Y.  believed  to  be  synonymous 
with  inhabiting  freeholders,  219, 
220,  223,  224;  interpretation  of 
the  phrase  in  N.  J.,  256,  257. 

Freeholders,  electors  in  England 
bv  act  of  1430,  5,  12 ;  opposed  to 
landless  men,  in  Md.,  61,  62,  64- 
65 ;  electors,  in  Carolinas,  81, 
82,  86,  87 ;  in  N.  C,  96,  98,  but 
not  enforced,  99  and  note;  es 
tablished  by  law,  loo ;  owning 
one  hundred  acres,  109;  owning 
fifty  acres,  in;  electors  in  N. 
C.  boroughs,  116,  117;  in  S.  C, 
in  1670,  123,  124;  in  1672,  128, 
140 ;  favored  by  proprietors, 
133;  in  1717,  148;  in  1721,  153; 
in  1745,  155;  in  1759,  157-158; 


probable   electors   in   N.   Y.,   in 
1665,  198 ;    electors  in  N.  "V.  in 

1683,  199,    200;     in    1689,    201; 
electors  in  West  Jersey,  245 ;  as 
town  electors  in  N.  J.,  255,  257; 
electors     in     Mass.,    363.      See 
Freehold. 

Freemanship,  idea  opposed  by 
Governor  Nicholls  in  N.  Y., 
202-203;  qualification  of  elect 
ors,  in  colonies  generally,  481- 
482.  See  also  Freemen. 

Freemen,  as  electors  in  English 
boroughs,  13-15;  455~456;  in 
Md.,  49,  53 ;  in  Carolinas,  81,  83  ; 
in  N.  C.,  92;  disfranchised  in 
N.  C.  unless  otherwise  qualified, 
100;  electors  in  S.  C.,  123,  124, 
127,  128;  synonymous  with  free 
holder  in  early  S.  C.,  130;  elect 
ors  in  N.  Y.  in  1665,  198;  of 
municipal  corporations,  electors 
in  N.  Y.,  200;  electors  in  New 
York  City  and  Albany,  208,  210, 
212,  221,  222;  proportion  of  in 
New  York  City,  218;  electors 
in  N.  J.,  230,  239 ;  electors  in 
Pa.,  273,  274 ;  term  defined,  275, 
279;  electors  in  Pa.,  283;  in 
county  elections,  295 ;  in  Mass, 
charter  of  1629,  302  ;  number  of, 
in  1630,  303 ;  must  be  church- 
members,  304 ;  other  require 
ments  for  admission,  307-310; 
oath  of,  309 ;  how  admitted  in 
distant  places,  309 ;  number  of, 
in  1640,  313-314;  those  not  at 
tending  public  worship  disfran 
chised,  321  ;  non-church-mem 
bers  may  become,  under  law  of 
1664,  324  ;  number  admitted  un 
der  this  law,  328-329;  probation 
of  one  year  required  in  certain 
cases,  330;  Randolph's  estimate 
of  number,  331  ;  number  in 

1684,  334;    in  Plymouth,  origin 
of  term,  341   note;    method  of 
admission,  341 ;    in   N.   H.,   ad 
mitted   to  Mass,   freedom,   350; 
in    Maine    inhabitants    admitted 
to  Mass.,  352 ;    in  Mass.,  given 
control    of    town    affairs,    361 ; 
only  to  be  chosen  to  offices,  365 ; 
have  a  vote  in  militia  elections, 
ibid.;    in    N.    H.    towns,    350; 
electors    in    N.    H.,    by    law    of 


Index. 


499 


1680,  374,  376 ;  electors  in  Conn., 
under  orders  of  1639,  382 ;  ad 
mitted  by  magistrates,  386; 
number  of  admissions,  387 ; 
property  qualification  upon,  388 ; 
restriction  of  number,  ibid.; 
number  of,  390 ;  in  New  Haven, 
as  electors,  393 ;  required  to  take 
declaration  of  obedience,  ibid.; 
number  of,  398;  request  for 
admission  to  Conn.,  403;  ad 
mitted  to  Conn.,  404;  in  Conn., 
how  admitted  under  charter  of 
1662,  405-406;  suffrage  limited 
to,  407;  new  qualifications  for, 
408;  unjust  exclusion  of,  410; 
list  of  to  be  made  by  town 
clerks,  411;  new  qualifications 
of  forty-shilling  freehold,  413; 
admitted  by  local  officers,  413; 
personal  property  qualification, 
414;  method  of  admission,  415; 
qualifications  of,  415-416;  num 
ber  of,  418-420 ;  in  R.  I.,  must 
first  be  accepted  by  towns,  432; 
town  freemen,  434  note  2,  435- 
436 ;  under  charter  of  1644,  44°~~ 
442 ;  how  admitted  under  char 
ter  of  1663,  446-448;  refusal  to 
admit,  447 ;  all  admitted  who 
desire  it,  449 ;  method  of  ad 
mission  in  1666,  449-450;  com 
pulsory  admission,  450 ;  great 
increase  in  number,  453~454; 
property  qualification  upon,  in 
1724,  454;  eldest  sons  of  free 
men  may  obtain  franchise,  454- 
456 ;  English  precedent  for,  455- 
456 ;  effect  of  paper  currency 
upon  qualifications,  457 ;  raised 
to  £200  value  of  freehold  or  £10 
income,  457 ;  £400  value  of 
freehold,  or  £20  income  re 
quired,  459 ;  must  take  oath 
against  bribery,  459 ;  £40  value 
of  freehold,  or  40  shilling  in 
come  required,  460 ;  method  of 
admission,  461 ;  town  freemen, 
467-468  ;  number  of  colony  free 
men,  471-472;  electors,  in  col 
onies  generally,  481-482. 

French  Huguenots,  opposed  as 
alien  electors  in  S.  C,  132. 

Fundamental  Constitutions  of 
Carolinas,  85-87;  enforced  in 
N.  C.  but  not  in  S.  C,  87-88; 


not  respected,  91 ;  in  N.  C.  in 
fluence  upon  later  legislation, 
88,  97;  in  S.  C,  123;  of  East 
Jersey,  239-240;  not  put  into 
execution,  241. 

Fundamental  Orders  of  Conn., 
381-384- 

Georgia,  reasons  for  settling,  163 ; 
terms  of  royal  charter,  163 ;  con 
cessions  to  settlers,  164 ;  author 
ity  of  Oglethorpe,  164;  power 
of  storekeeper,  165 ;  division 
into  counties,  165 ;  popular 
meetings,  165-167;  reasons  for 
failure  of  colony,  167;  develop 
ment  of  representative  system, 
168-169;  limited  powers  of  first 
assembly,  169;  strange  qualifica 
tions  of  members,  169-170;  sur 
render  of  colony  to  crown,  170; 
establishment  of  representative 
system  in  governor's  instruc 
tions,  170-171 ;  consideration  of 
suffrage,  171 ;  petition  to  adapt 
qualifications  to  town  popula 
tion,  172;  election  act  of  1761 
limited  suffrage  to  freeholders 
of  fifty  acres,  172 ;  general  con 
duct  of  elections,  173. 

Germantown,  Pa.,  scot  and  lot 
voters  in,  279;  charter  of,  279 
note;  origin  of  borough  govern 
ment  in,  293;  called  a  town, 
295  note;  borough  charter  of, 
296-297. 

Gibbes,  Robert,  elected  governor 
of  S.  C,  142. 

Glen,  James,  governor  of  S.  C., 
154;  opposed  to  ballot,  156-157. 

Gloucester,  N.  J.,  Dutch  fort  near, 
260. 

Gorgeana,  Maine,  351 ;  annexed  to 
Mass.,  352. 

Gorton,   Samuel,  431. 

Governors,  colonial,  instructions 
to.  See  Instructions. 

Grand  Model  of  government  in 
S.  C,  123,  128;  effect  of  upon 
representative  government,  129. 

Gravesend,  L.  I.,  charter  of,  190, 
191 ;  admission  of  inhabitants, 
192 ;  case  of  woman  suffrage  in, 
192. 

Gray,  Edmund,  agitator  in  Ga., 
171. 


500 


Index. 


Great  Law,  the  legislation  of  first 
Pa.  assembly,  277. 

Greenwich,  Conn.,  inhabitants  ad 
mitted  to  Conn,  freemanship, 
402. 

Guilford,  Conn.,  agreements  of 
settlers,  391 ;  origin  of  govern 
ment,  394;  non-freemen  re 
quired  to  attend  town-meeting, 
397 ;  popular  movement  in,  401 ; 
inhabitants  admitted  to  Conn, 
freemanship,  402. 


Half- Way  Covenant,  307,  318-319. 

Halifax,  N.  C,  suffrage  in,  115. 

Hamilton,  Andrew,  governor  of 
East  Jersey,  242-243. 

Hampton,  N.  H.,  town  suffrage  in, 
359;  settlement  of,  370;  number 
of  voters  in,  373  note  4. 

Harlem,  N.  Y.,  popular  meeting 
in,  189. 

Hartford,  Conn.,  religious  contro 
versy  in,  318;  terms  of  admis 
sion  of  inhabitants  in,  385 ;  re 
fusal  to  admit,  385;  political 
meeting  at,  in  1689,  412;  land 
matters  in,  427. 

Harvey,  Governor,  forcibly  ex 
pelled  from  Va.,  23 ;  restored  by 
king,  24. 

Hastings,  borough  suffrage  in,  14. 

Hat,  in  Pa.  used  for  ballot-box, 
278;  in  R.  I.,  used  for  ballot- 
box,  465  note  2,  466. 

Haverhill,  Mass.,  town  suffrage 
in,  360;  ballot  used  in,  361  note; 
suffrage  concerning  land  mat 
ters,  367. 

Haynes,  Governor,  of  Conn.,  386. 

Heads  of  families,  as  electors,  in 
Carolinas,  87;  in  New  Nether- 
land,  175;  in  Plymouth,  344; 
in  Mass,  towns,  360;  in  R.  I. 
(Providence),  432. 

Heath,  Sir  Robert,  royal  charter 
to,  80. 

Hempstead,  L.  I.,  charter  of,  190, 
191 ;  admission  of  inhabitants, 
192 ;  assembly  in  1665,  198 ;  ad 
mission  of  inhabitants,  204;  dis 
puted  election  in,  207;  suffrage 
in,  225. 

Hereditary  freemanship,  in  R.  I., 
454-456,  460-462. 


Heresy,  origin  of,  in  Mass.,  306; 
denned,  306  note. 

Higginson,  Francis,  reasons  for 
settlement  of  New  England, 
301. 

Hillsborough,  borough  in  N.  C, 
erected  for  political  reasons, 
113;  suffrage  in,  115. 

Honiton,  borough  suffrage  in,  n, 
12. 

Hooker,  Thomas,  an  antagonist  to 
Cotton,  380 ;  theory  of  elections, 
389- 

Householders,  as  electors  in  Eng 
lish  towns,  10 ;  in  Va.,  31;  in 
N.  C.  boroughs,  116;  in  N.  Y. 
towns,  205 ;  in  N.  J.  towns,  249, 
256,  257;  in  Wilmington,  Del., 
272;  in  Pa.  boroughs,  297;  in 
Mass,  under  law  of  1664,  324; 
in  Mass,  local  elections,  359,  360, 
362;  in  militia  elections,  366; 
in  Conn.,  386;  in  church  elec 
tions,  in  Conn.,  424 ;  in  colonies 
generally,  483. 

Housekeepers,  only  electors  in 
Va.,  1655,  28. 

House  of  Commons,  English,  con 
stitution  of,  2. 

Huguenots,  in  S.  C,  their  num 
bers,  131 ;  act  for  naturalization 
of  repealed  by  proprietors,  132; 
growth  of  opposition  to,  133; 
more  friendly  feeling,  134;  nat 
uralization  of,  134,  141. 

Hundred,  in  Pa.,  a  sub-division  of 
county  for  election  purposes, 
284  note  4. 

Independency,  spirit  of,  in  N.  C. 
in  1760,  in. 

Indians,  disfranchised  in  Va.,  36; 
disfranchised  in  N.  C,  92. 

Indigenous  political  organization. 
See  Corporations,  Self-origi 
nating. 

Indirect  elections,  on  Long  Island, 
199,  200-201 ;  in  N.  J.  in  1673, 
235  note;  proposed  in  Mass., 
311. 

Inducements  to  settlers,  in  colony 
of  city  of  Amsterdam  on  Dela 
ware,  264;  by  Wm.  Penn,  274. 
See  also  Concessions. 

Ingle,  Richard,  leader  of  Protes 
tant  rebellion  in  Md.,  56. 


Index. 


Inhabitant,  definition  of,  in  N.  Y., 
205;  in  Mass.,  358-359,  360. 

Inhabitants,  admission  of,  in  Ply 
mouth,  343-344;  in  N.  H.,  378; 
in  Conn.,  385;  in  New  Haven, 
400;  in  R.  I.  towns,  434-436. 

Inhabitants,  as  electors  in  English 
boroughs,  10;  the  original 
electors  in  towns,  n;  in  burg- 
age  towns,  12;  as  electors  in 
N.  C,  90,  92,  109,  no;  in  N.  C. 
boroughs,  116;  in  N.  Y.  towns, 
205 ;  in  New  York  City  and 
Albany,  208;  in  Albany,  N.  Y., 
222-223;  in  West  Jersey,  245; 
in  N.  J.  towns,  249,  256,  257 ;  in 
Pa.,  257,  283;  in  Mass,  under 
law  of  1664,  324;  in  Plymouth, 
344 ;  in  Mass,  towns,  358-360, 
362,  363;  in  church  elections, 
364;  in  Plymouth  militia  elec 
tions,  366;  in  N.  H.,  374,  375, 
376;  in  town  elections,  378;  in 
Conn.,  under  orders  of  1639, 
382,  384;  term  defined,  384; 
conditions  imposed  by  towns, 
385 ;  suffrage  qualifications 
upon,  386 ;  in  New  Haven,  395 ; 
discontinued  by  charter  of  1662, 
406;  in  relation  to  common 
lands,  426-427;  in  R.  I.  (Provi 
dence),  432;  in  R.  I.,  towns, 
467-468;  in  colonies  generally, 
483.  See  also  Householders. 

Inhabitants-householders,  as  elect 
ors  in  N.  J.  towns,  249,  253; 
under  instructions  of  royal  gov 
ernors,  254. 

Initiative,  popular,  of  laws,  in  R. 
I.,  444. 

Inspectors  of  elections,  in  Del., 
270;  in  Pa.,  282;  irregularities 
in  choice  of,  284 ;  change  in 
method  of  choosing,  285. 

Instructions,  of  royal  governors, 
favor  freehold  suffrage,  in  Va., 
34;  in  Md.,  70;  in  N.  C.,  96; 
significance  of  in  colonies,  95, 
and  in  N.  C.,  96;  forbid  change 
of  suffrage  qualifications  in  N. 
C,  107;  in  S.  C,  152,  154;  in 
Ga.,  170;  in  N.  Y.,  210;  in  N. 
J.,  249,  254;  but  inhabitant 
franchise  in  towns,  ibid.;  in  Pa., 
278 ;  in  N.  H.,  375,  376 ;  in  col 
onies  generally,  486-487. 


Instrument  of  Government,  Eng 
lish,  terms  adopted  in  Va.,  1655, 
28  note. 

Interest  in  the  country,  electors 
should  be  persons  who  possess, 
in  S.  C.,  148,  149;  in  N.  J.,  241, 
253. 

Irregularities  in  elections,  in  Eng 
land  before  1430,  5;  after  1430, 
7;  a  reason  for  abolition  of 
manhood  suffrage  in  Va.,  31 ; 
protested  against  by  Governor 
Spotswood  in  Va.,  37 ;  a  reason 
for  restrictive  act  of  1736,  38; 
in  Md.,  69,  70;  in  N.  C,  89,  91, 
97,  99,  100,  109,  no;  in  N.  C. 
parishes,  119;  in  S.  C.,  137,  142; 
in  N.  Y.,  202,  211,  212;  in  N.  J., 
250;  in  Del.,  271;  in  Pa.,  277, 
283,  284,  285;  in  Mass.,  313; 
laws  against  in  Mass.,  330 ;  in 
Conn.,  410,  423;  in  R.  I.,  443, 

458-459,  465. 
Israel,  New  Haven  likened  to,  402. 

Jamaica,  L.  I.,  charter  of,  191,  193. 

Jamaica,  West  Indies,  laws  of,  a 
precedent  for  S.  C.  legislation, 
145  note. 

Jennings,  Samuel,  governor  of 
West  Jersey,  246. 

Jesuits,  banished  from  Mass.,  320. 

Jews,  as  electors  in  S.  C.,  138; 
disfranchised  in  N.  Y.,  214-215 ; 
in  R.  I.,  452 ;  in  colonies  gen 
erally,  476. 

Johnson,  Robert,  governor  of  S. 
C.,  popular  movement  against, 
149-150;  again  governor,  154. 

Johnson,  Sir  Nathaniel,  governor 
of  N.  C,  88. 

Johnston,  Gabriel,  governor  of  N. 
C.,  secures  limitation  of  suffrage 
to  freeholders,  100-101 ;  desires 
repeal  of  election  laws,  101 ;  ap 
portionment  contest,  102^-106. 

Joint-tenants,  determination  of 
their  rights  as  voters  in  Va.,  38, 
41. 

Judicial  officers  as  freeholds  in 
England,  9. 

Jurors,  grand,  to  be  freeholders, 
in  Md.,  63. 

Jury,  grand,  a  means  of  express 
ing  popular  opinion  in  Ga.,  165, 
166. 


502 


Index. 


Justices  of  peace,  chosen  by  popu 
lar  election  in  N.  Y.  in  1689,  201. 

Kieft,  William,  director  of  New 
Netherland,  175-176;  replaced 
by  Stuyvesant,  177. 

Kitchen,  elections  in,  in  R.  I.,  466. 

Kittery,  Maine,  inhabitants  admit 
ted  to  Mass.,  352. 

Labor,  price  of,  fixed  in  Mass, 
towns,  361. 

Laborers,  as  electors  in  Campbel- 
ton,  N.  C,  117. 

Lancaster  County,  Pa.,  election 
evils  in,  285 ;  town  meetings  in, 
293  note. 

Lancaster,  Pa.,  borough  charter 
of,  296-297;  town  meeting  in, 
297. 

Land,  ease  of  obtaining,  influences 
the  suffrage,  in  S.  C,  130;  in 
N.  J.,  229-230;  assessed  valua 
tion  of,  in  Conn.,  412. 

Land  matters,  suffrage  concerning, 
in  N.  Y.,  224-225;  in  Mass., 
367-369;  in  N.  H.,  378;  in  New 
Haven,  approaches  a  political 
power,  398;  non-freemen  may 
vote  upon,  401 ;  in  Conn.,  426- 
429;  in  R.  I.,  436,  469. 

Land  system,  on  Long  Island, 
191-192,  205-206;  in  N.  Y.,  224- 
225;  in  Mass.,  357~363,  367-369; 
in  N.  H.,  378;  in  Conn.,  38.4- 
386 ;  in  New  Haven,  391 ;  in 
Conn.,  421,  426-429;  in  R.  I., 

430-437,  469- 

Lands,  terms  upon  which  they 
were  granted  to  settlers,  in 
Carolinas,  82,  86 ;  in  S.  C,  123 ; 
in  Ga.,  164,  167,  171 ;  in  N.  J., 
228-230 ;  in  West  Jersey,  245. 

Leaseholders,  electors,  in  English 
boroughs,  12;  in  N.  C.  bor 
oughs,  116;  in  East  Jersey  fun 
damentals,  239;  in  Lancaster, 
Pa.,  297. 

Lechford,  his  estimate  of  propor 
tion  of  freemen  in  Mass.,  214. 

Lectureships,  as  freeholds  in  Eng 
land,  9. 

Leisler,  Jacob,  heads  revolution  in 
N.  Y.,  201 ;  favors  popular  elec 
tions,  ibid.;  disfranchises  Catho 
lics,  ibid.;  calls  representative 


meetings,  202;  interferes  with 
elections,  ibid.;  called  a  tyrant, 
ibid.;  compared  with  Mass, 
revolutionists,  337. 

Lewes,  Del.,  called  a  town,  295 
note. 

Lists  of  taxables,  to  be  used  in 
Pa.,  by  election  officers  in 
judging  qualifications  of  elect 
ors,  285.  See  also  Taxables. 

Liverpool,  borough  suffrage  in, 
14- 

Local  suffrage,  in  Va.,  45-46;  in 
Md.,  76-77;  in  N.  C,  94,  117- 
120;  in  S.  C.,  159-161;  in  New 
Netherland,  in  Dutch  towns, 
188-190,  in  English  towns,  190- 
194,  in  New  Amsterdam,  194- 
196;  in  N.  Y.,  202-209,  218- 
226 ;  in  N.  J.,  255-257 ;  in  Del., 
272;  in  Pa.,  292-299;  in  Mass., 
357-369;  in  N.  H.,  377-378,  in 
Conn.,  420-429;  in  R.  I.,  467-471. 

London,  suffrage  in,  14,  359  note. 

Long  Island,  proxy  voting  in 
towns,  176  note;  English  favor 
Stuyvesant,  182  note;  English 
Commonwealth  proclaimed  in 
Gravesend,  186;  English  towns 
independent  of  Dutch,  187^ 
charters  of  English  towns,  190- 
191 ;  town  meetings  of,  191,  194; 
towns  off-shoots  of  New  Eng 
land,  196;  Nicholls  promises 
privileges  to,  197,  198;  proxy 
voting,  207,  210  note. 

Long  Parliament,  of  Va.,  29-30. 

Lords  of  Trade  and  Plantations, 
favor  restricted  suffrage  in  Va., 
38;  consider  suffrage  in  N.  J., 
252 ;  favor  tax-paying  basis  of 
suffrage  in  Mass.,  332 ;  criticise 
R.  I.  government  and  suggest 
union  with  N.  H.,  455. 

Lot,  election  by  the,  in  Ports 
mouth,  R.  I.,  437. 

Lovelace,  Lord,  governor  of  N.  J., 

254- 

Ludlow,  borough  suffrage  in,  14. 

Ludwell,  Philip,  governor  of  S. 
C,  132. 

Lygonia,  Maine,  popular  govern 
ment  in,  351 ;  annexed  to  Mass., 
352. 

Lyme,  Conn.,  question  of  inhabi 
tancy  in,  421  note  4. 


Index. 


503 


Maine,  admission  of  inhabitants 
to  Mass.,  freedom,  309,  320; 
advice  from  Mass.,  concerning 
new  freemen,  330;  government 
at  Saco,  350 ;  charter  of  1639  to 
Gorges,  350;  city  erected,  350- 
351 ;  popular  convention  and 
combination,  351 ;  other  settle 
ments,  351-352;  union  with 
Mass.,  352 ;  non-church-mem 
bers  admitted,  352. 

Maiden,  Mass.,  rights  of  common 
age  in,  367. 

Management  of  elections  by  gov 
ernors,  in  Md.,  63 ;  in  N.  C,  89, 
95  note,  103  note,  104,  HI;  in 
S.  C,  137- 

Marblehead,  Mass.,  defect  of  free 
men  in,  308. 

Markham,  Governor,  of  Pa., 
adopts  new  suffrage  law,  279. 

Maryland,  character  of  suffrage  in, 
48;  terms  of  Baltimore's  char 
ter,  48 ;  confusion  between  free 
men  and  freeholders,  48-49; 
first  primary  assembly,  49;  de 
velopment  of  representative  sys 
tem,  49-55  ;  character  of  assem 
blies,  51 ;  broad  interpretation 
of  word  freeman,  53;  petition 
for  woman  suffrage,  53~54; 
proxy  system,  55  ;  disfranchise- 
ment  of  Catholics  during  Com 
monwealth  period,  56-58 ;  Ingle's 
rebellion,  56;  English  commis 
sioners,  57;  act  for  religious 
toleration,  58  note;  restoration 
of  province  to  Baltimore,  59.; 
Fendall's  conspiracy,  60 ;  char 
acter  of  period  1649-1661,  60; 
conflicting  interests  of  freemen 
and  freeholders,  61-62 ;  suffrage 
limited  in  1670  by  proprietary 
writs,  62;  St.  Mary's  incorpo 
rated,  and  used  for  partisan  pur 
poses,  63  ;  quarrel  between  pro 
prietor  and  people,  63-64 ;  popu 
lar  rebellion,  64 ;  theory  of  suf 
frage  and  representation,  65; 
suffrage  restricted  by  law  of 
1678,  65-66;  but  law  disallowed 
and  terms  enforced  by  proprie 
tary  ordinance,  67 ;  Coode's  re 
bellion,  68-70 ;  Protestant  Asso 
ciation,  69;  Catholics  tempora 
rily  disfranchised,  69 ;  similarity 


to  movement  in  N.  Y.,  70;  Bal 
timore's  rights  forfeited  and 
royal  government  established, 
70;  royal  instructions  limit  suf 
frage  to  freeholders,  70;  elec 
tion  act  of  1692,  70-72 ;  Catholics 
excluded  from  assembly,  but  not 
from  suffrage,  71-72;  removal 
of  seat  of  government  to  An 
napolis,  72 ;  suffrage  under  char 
ter  of  Annapolis,  72-73;  com 
pulsory  voting,  74;  restoration 
of  Calverts,  74;  permanent  dis- 
franchisement  of  Catholics,  74- 
75 ;  local  suffrage,  76-77 ;  parish 
elections,  ibid.;  summary  of 
suffrage  provisions,  77-78. 
Massachusetts,  reasons  for  found 
ing  Bay  Colony,  300-302;  royal 
charter  of  1629,  301-302;  re 
moval  of  charter,  302 ;  first  com 
pany  meeting  in  America,  303; 
first  court  of  election,  304 ;  ad 
mission  of  new  freemen,  304; 
f  reemanship  restricted  to  church- 
members,  304-305 ;  disadvan 
tages  of,  305;  heresy  and  at 
tempt  to  control  church  organi 
zation,  306 ;  disf ranchisement  of 
dissenting  freemen,  307 ;  method 
of  admission  of  freemen,  307- 
310;  compulsory  freemanship, 
308;  magistrates  may  admit 
freemen,  308-309 ;  freeman's 
oath,  309;  representative  sys 
tem,  310;  ballot  and  proxy 
voting,  310-312;  size  of  dis 
franchised  classes,  312-313;  ap 
pearance  in  elections,  313-314; 
agitation  of  Presbyterians  for 
extended  suffrage,  3i4~3i7;  de 
mands  for  English  laws,  315 ; 
extension  of  town  franchise, 
317-318;  Half- Way  Covenant 
and  effect  upon  suffrage,  318- 
319;  attitude  toward  New 
Hampshire  and  Maine  settlers, 
320;  attitude  toward  Jesuits, 
Quakers,  and  Baptists,  320-321 ; 
correspondence  with  Charles  II., 
322-323 ;  royal  commissioners  in 
Mass.,  323-326 ;  law  of  1664  for 
admission  of  non-church-mem 
bers  to  freedom,  324;  commis 
sioners'  opinion  of  law,  325- 
326;  refusal  to  permit  use  of 


504 


Index. 


Book  of  Common  Prayer,  325; 
administration  of  law  of  1664, 
326-329 ;  advice  to  Maine  con 
cerning  new  freemen,  330;  con 
test  with  Randolph  and  English 
government,  33O~334 ;  over 
throw  of  charter,  334;  number 
of  freemen  about  1685,  334~335 ; 
arrest  of  Andros,  335;  revolu 
tion  of  1689,  335-337 ;  extension 
of  suffrage  in  1690,  336-337; 
reason  for  failure  of  religious 
policy  of  Mass.,  337 ;  suffrage  in 
Plymouth  Colony,  337-349  (see 
Plymouth)  ;  suffrage  in  the 
northern  teritories,  349-353  (see 
Maine  and  New  Hampshire)  ; 
Mass,  charter  of  1691,  353~354; 
suffrage  under,  354;  number  of 
electors  under,  355~357 ;  com 
pared  with  N.  Y.  and  Va.,  357; 
local  suffrage,  357-369;  town 
elections,  357-363 ;  community 
of  lands  a  feature  of  town  life, 
357~358;  definition  of  word  in 
habitants,  358-361 ;  control  by 
central  government  of  town  suf 
frage,  361-363;  church  elec 
tions,  363-365 ;  under  charter  of 
1629,  364;  under  charter  of 
1691,  ibid.;  militia  elections, 
365-366 ;  voting  concerning  land 
matters,  367-369;  'separation  of 
inhabitants  from  commoners, 
367-368 ;  decline  of  towns  as 
economic  land  corporations, 
369- 

Mayflower,  compact  on  board,  338. 

Meeting-house,  in  Watertown, 
Mass.,  town  lots  to  be  near,  360 ; 
elections  in  R.  I.  held  in,  466. 

Merchant  Adventurers  of  Eng 
land,  455. 

Middletown,  Conn.,  terms  of  ad 
mission  of  inhabitants,  385. 

Milford,  Conn.,  proposed  settle 
ment  of  inhabitants  in  Dutch 
territory,  193  ;  agreements  of  set 
tlers,  391 ;  origin  of  government, 
394 ;  non-church-members  as 
freemen,  394. 

Militia  elections,  open  to  soldiers 
in  Va.  in  1676,  33;  in  N.  Y.,  by 
popular  choice,  201,  204,  but  dis 
continued  in  1691,  218  note;  in 
Mass.,  365-366;  discontinued  in 


1669,  366;  in  Plymouth,  366;  in 
New  Haven  limited  to  church- 
members,  395,  400,  425;  in 
Conn.,  425-426;  in  R.  I.,  438 
note,  470-471. 

Miller,  Thomas,  President,  in  N. 
C,  89. 

Ministers,  how  chosen  in  Mass., 
364;  in  N.  H.  by  freeholders 
alone,  378 ;  in  Conn.,  424. 

Minors,  as  electors  in  Conn.,  ex 
istence  denied,  383.  See  also 
Boys,  Young  People. 

Mob,  as  electors  in  Va.,  37. 

Monmouth,  N.  J.,  charter  of,  249 
note. 

Monmouth  Patent,  in  N.  J.,  origin 
of,  231 ;  patentees  refuse  to  re- 
patent  land,  232;  excluded  from 
suffrage,  233 ;  refuse  to  pay 
quit-rents,  ibid.;  general  treat 
ment  of  inhabitants,  238. 

Moody,  Lady,  as  elector  in 
Gravesend,  L.  I.,  192-193,  473. 

Moore,  Tames,  elected  governor  in 
S.  C,  136. 

Mortgagees,  as  electors,  8. 

Mortgages  upon  freeholds  in  N. 
Y.,  effect  upon  suffrage,  213. 

Mulatto,  definition  of,  in  Va.,  36 
note. 

Mulattoes,  disfranchised  in  Va., 
36;  in  N.  C,  92. 

Naturalization,  in  S.  C.,  of  Hu 
guenots,  132,  133;  favored  by 
assembly,  134;  acts  for,  134,  141 ; 
act  for  in  Pa.,  276,  281 ;  in 
Mass.,  355.  See  also  Citizenship. 

Nature,  laws  of,  justify  the  repre 
sentative  system,  184 ;  appealed 
to  in  N.  J.,  in  1704,  251. 

Negroes,  as  real  estate  in  Va.,  36; 
disfranchised  in  Va.,  36;  in  N. 
C.,  92;  restriction  in  N.  C.  re 
moved,  loo-ioi ;  as  electors  in 
S.  C.,  137.  See  also  Race. 

New  Amstel,  Del.,  267. 

New  Amsterdam,  popular  meeting 
in,  189 ;  burgher  government  es 
tablished,  194 ;  exclusive  burgh- 
errecht  established,  195. 

New  England  Confederacy,  dis 
cusses  attack  upon  New  Amster 
dam,  398. 

New  England,  Dominion  of,  377. 


Index. 


505 


New  England,  laws  of,  copied  by 
Governor  Nicholls  of  N.  Y., 
202-203. 

New  Hampshire,  dissenters  in,  ad 
mitted  to  Mass,  freedom,  320; 
suffrage  in,  under  Mass,  juris 
diction,  349,  353;  early  settle 
ments  in,  370;  town  agreement 
of  Exeter,  370;  of  Dover,  371; 
of  Portsmouth,  371 ;  no  union 
of  towns,  371-372;  union  with 
Mass.,  372 ;  non-church-mem 
bers  admitted,  372;  suffrage 
under  Mass,  rule,  373 ;  royal 
government  established,  373 ; 
suffrage  under  President  Cutt, 
373-374;  suffrage  qualifications 
by  law  of  1680,  374;  royal  in 
structions  require  freehold 
qualification,  375;  but  are  not 
uniformly  enforced,  375-376 ; 
act  of  1699  established  freehold 
or  personal  property  requisite, 
376;  act  of  1727  limited  suffrage 
to  freeholders,  377 ;  local  suf 
frage,  377-378;  church  elec 
tions,  378;  similarity  of  N.  H. 
to  Mass,  legislation,  378-379. 

New  Haven,  Conn.,  founds  settle 
ment  on  Delaware,  260;  theo 
cratic  ideals  of,  390-391 ;  self- 
incorporating  communities,  391 ; 
origin  of  government  in  New 
Haven,  391-394;  religious  re 
strictions  upon  freemen,  ibid.; 
origin  of  government  in  Milford, 
Guilford,  and  Southold,  394; 
fundamentals  of  1643,  395;  ne 
cessity  for  controlling  churches 
as  sources  of  freemanship,  396 ; 
disfranchisement  of  members  of 
irregular  churches,  ibid.;  proxy 
system  established,  397 ;  dissatis 
faction  over  suffrage  restric 
tions,  ibid.;  attempts  to  extend 
suffrage,  397-402;  included  un 
der  Conn,  charter  of  1662,  402- 
403  ;  negotiations  for  union,  403- 
404 ;  Conn,  makes  no  concession 
upon  religious  qualifications, 
404-405 ;  freemen  incorporated 
into  Conn.,  410. 

New  Jersey,  lack  of  political  life 
under  Dutch.  227 ;  grant  to  Lord 
Berkeley  and  Sir  George  Car- 
teret,  228 ;  concessions  to  set 


tlers,  228-231 ;  ease  of  obtaining 
land,  229-230;  suffrage  in  con 
cessions,  230;  difficulty  of  de 
fining  freehold,  231 ;  the 
Nicholls's  grants,  231-232;  those 
refusing  to  re-patent  lands  to  be 
disfranchised,  232-234 ;  Dutch 
reoccupation,  234-235;  division 
of  province,  235;  quintipartite 
deed,  235^236;  suffrage  and 
representation  in  East  Jersey, 
236-243  (see  East  Jersey)  ;  suf 
frage  and  representation  in 
West  Jersey,  243-248  (see 
West  Jersey)  ;  transfer  of  Jer 
seys  to  crown,  248-249:  rights 
demanded  for  settlers,  248; 
royal  instructions  establish  rep 
resentative  system  and  freehold 
suffrage  in  1702,  239;  election 
evils,  250;  objections  to  free 
hold  qualification,  251 ;  new  in 
structions,  252 ;  proprietors  op 
pose  personal  property  qualifica 
tion  in  interesting  paper,  253- 
254;  election  act  of  1709,  254- 
255;  local  suffrage,  255-258. 

New  Netherland  Company,  174. 

New  York,  under  the  Dutch,  174- 
196;  the  provincial  suffrage, 
174-188;  patroon  concessions, 
174;  the  Twelve  Men,  174-175; 
the  Eight  Men,  175-177;  ap 
pointment  of  Governor  Stuy- 
vesant,  177;  the  Nine  Men,  177- 
181 ;  representative  conference, 
179;  increased  inducements  to 
settlers,  180;  general  character 
of  representative  boards,  181 ; 
representative  assembly  of  1653, 
182-185  ;  laws  of  nature  appealed 
to  against  Stuyvesant's  actions, 
184 ;  assembly  of  1654,  185-186 ; 
encroachments  of  Conn.,  186; 
favorable  concessions  to  English 
settlers,  186;  assembly  of  1663, 
187;  President  Scott  on  Loiig 
Island,  187-188;  last  assembly 
of  New  Netherland,  188;  local 
elections  under  Dutch.  188-196; 
in  the  Dutch  towns,  188-190;  in 
the  English  towns,  190-194; 
woman  suffrage,  192;  in  New 
Amsterdam,  194-196;  the  suf 
frage  in  the  early  English 
period,  1664-1691,  196-209; 


506 


Index. 


Duke  of  York's  charter,  196- 
197;  articles  of  capitulation, 
197;  promise  of  Nicholls  to 
Long  Island  settlers,  197-198; 
Hempstead  assembly  of  1665, 
198;  Duke  of  York  in  1683  au 
thorizes  an  assembly,  199;  unit 
of  representation  in  1683,  199; 
suffrage  limited  to  forty-shilling 
freeholders  and  freemen  in  cor 
porations,  200;  Leisler's  rebel 
lion,  201-202;  Catholics  dis 
franchised,  201 ;  local  suffrage 
in  Duke's  Laws,  202-209; 
Nicholls  refuses  to  adopt  free 
man  principle  of  New  England 
colonies,  203 ;  terms  of  admis 
sion  to  towns,  204;  elective  pf- 
ficers,  204;  confusing  terms  ap 
plied  to  electors,  205;  all  be 
lieved  to  be  equivalent  to  in 
habiting  freeholders,  205-206 ; 
no  definite  amount  of  freehold, 
206-207;  extension  of  Duke's 
Laws  to  upper  Hudson  and  to 
Delaware  settlements,  208 ;  elec 
tions  in  N.  Y.  city,  208-209; 
suffrage  in  later  English  period, 
1691-1775,  209-226;  the  pro 
vincial  suffrage,  200-218;  royal 
instructions  as  basis  for  suf 
frage,  209;  act  of  1691  limits 
suffrage  to  forty-shilling  free 
holders,  210 ;  election  difficulties, 
1698-1702,  211-^-213;  act  of  1699 
changes  qualification  to  £40 
value  of  freehold,  212;  defini 
tion  of  freehold,  213;  disfran- 
chisement  of  Catholics,  214;  of 
Jews,  214-215 ;  non-residents  as 
electors,  215-216;  plural  voting, 
215-217;  number  of  electors, 
217-218,  357;  local  suffrage, 
218-226;  county  elections,  218- 
220;  city  elections,  220-223; 
terms  of  admission  of  freemen 
(in  N.  Y.  city  and  Albany,  222; 
town  elections,  223 ;  parish  elec 
tions,  224;  suffrage  concerning 
land  matters,  224-225;  general 
character  of  local  electors,  225- 
226 ;  number  of  electors  com 
pared  with  New  England,  357. 
New  York  City,  municipal  gov 
ernment  organized  by  Governor 
Dongan,  208;  elections  in.  220- 


222;  parish  elections  in,  224; 
see  also  New  Amsterdam. 

Newark,  N.  J.,  charter  of,  249 
note. 

Newbern,  N.  C.,  suffrage  in,  114, 
US- 

Newbury,  Mass.,  ballot  used  in, 
361  note. 

Newcastle,  Del,  court  established 
at,  267 ;  analysis  of  activities  of 
court,  268 ;  town  officers  at,  268 ; 
called  a  town,  295  note. 

Newcastle-on-Tyne,  borough  suf 
frage  in,  14. 

Newport,  R.  I.,  union  with  Ports 
mouth,  431 ;  town  agreement, 
433;  organization  of  govern 
ment,  437;  union  with  Ports 
mouth,  438;  proxy  system  in, 
443>  463;  elections  held  in,  464, 
466 ;  number  of  freemen  in,  472. 

Newtown,  L.  I.,  charter  of,  190, 
191. 

Nicholls,  Colonel  Richard,  prom 
ises  popular  government  to 
Long  Island,  197,  198;  publishes 
Duke's  Laws,  198 ;  excludes 
freemanship  principle  from  the 
Laws,  202—203 ;  opposes  grant 
of  N.  J.  to  Berkeley  and  Car- 
teret,  228;  gives  lands  in  N.  J. 
to  settlers,  231. 

Nicholson,  Sir  Francis,  governor 
of  Md.,  72;  of  S.  C,  152-153; 
of  N.  Y.,  209. 

Nine  Men,  the,  in  New  Nether- 
land,  177-180. 

Nobility,  lack  of,  in  Carolinas,  89 ; 
place  of,  in  Carolina  parliament, 
128;  in  East  Jersey,  240. 

Nomination  of  officers,  method  of, 
in  Mass.,  311,  312  note;  in 
Conn.,  417-418,  425;  see  also 
plural  nomination. 

Non-conformists,  as  electors  in 
Conn.,  church  elections,  425. 

Non-freemen,  in  Mass,  invited  by 
royal  commissioners  to  attend 
election,  325 ;  in  Guilford, 
Conn.,  required  to  attend  town- 
meeting,  397. 

Non-jurors,  in  R.  I.,  449. 

Non-residents,  as  electors,  in  Eng 
land,  6,  14-15;  in  borough  of 
Campbelton,  N.  C,  116;  in  N. 
Y.,  215-216. 


Index. 


507 


Northampton  County,  England, 
proportion  of  non-resident 
voters  in,  6. 

North  Carolina,  general  character 
of  history,  79-80;  suffrage  un 
der  proprietory  government,  80- 
95 ;  royal  charters,  80-8 1 ;  con 
cessions  to  settlers,  81-82 ;  pro 
prietors  oppose  a  close  corpora 
tion,  81-83 ;  concessions  of  1665, 
83 ;  use  of  terms  freeman  and 
freeholder,  83 ;  attempt  to  divide 
province  into  colonies,  84 ;  ori 
gin  of  representative  organiza 
tion,  84-85 ;  fundamental  con 
stitution  of  1669,  85;  terms 
respecting  the  suffrage,  86 ;  suf 
frage  terms  in  later  fundamen 
tals,  86-87;  status  of  funda 
mentals  in  South  and  North 
Carolina,  87-88;  suffrage  down 
to  1715,  88-91 ;  governors'  com 
missions,  88-89;  irregularity  in 
elections,  89;  biennial  assem 
blies,  90;  suffrage  affected  by 
Gary's  rebellion,  91 ;  election 
writs,  90^91  notes;  law  of  1715 
disfranchises  negroes,  and  re 
quires  electors  to  be  tax-payers, 
91-92 ;  beginning  of  town  repre 
sentation,  93  ;  suffrage  in  towns, 
93794 1  local  suffrage  under  pro 
prietary  government,  94;  sum 
mary  of  suffrage  during  proprie 
tary  period,  95;  suffrage  under 
the  royal  government,  95-121 ; 
use  of  royal  instructions  and  ve 
toes  in  N.  C,  96;  instructions 
limit  suffrage  to  freeholders,  96 ; 
Burrington's  quarrel  with  peo 
ple  over  suffrage  and  representa 
tion,  96-100 ;  he  erects  new  pre 
cincts,  98;  sends  writs  to  free 
holders  only,  98-99;  act  of  1735 
limits  suffrage  to  freeholders  of 
fifty  acres,  100;  elaborate  elec 
tion  act  of  1743,  101-102;  pro 
vision  for  ballot,  102 ;  apportion 
ment  contest,  102-107 ;  Governor 
Johnson  favors  southern  part  of 
province,  103-104;  attitude  of 
English  government  toward  N. 
C.  legislation,  106;  number  of 
repealed  laws,  106  note;  instruc 
tions  to  new  governor,  106-107 ; 
repeal  of  election  law  leads  to 


confusion,  108-110;  election  ir 
regularities,  no;  election  act  of 
1760  establishes  freehold  suf 
frage  and  abolishes  ballot,  in; 
the  Regulator  movement  and 
the  suffrage  and  ballot,  112-113; 
theory  of  representation,  113; 
borough  franchise,  114-117; 
local  suffrage,  117-120;  parish 
elections,  118-120;  summary  of 
suffrage  in  N.  C.,  120-121. 

Northern  Liberties,  Pa.,  incorpo 
rated  district  of  Philadelphia 
Co.,  299. 

Nottingham,  borough  suffrage  in, 
14 ;  456  note  3. 

Number  of  voters,  in  Va.,  46-47; 
in  S.  C,  1669-1670,  124,  129; 
in  New  Netherland,  175;  in  N. 
Y.,  217-218;  in  N.  J.  in  1665, 
227;  in  Pa.,  286-292;  city  and 
country  compared,  289,  292 ;  rea 
son  for  disparity,  290  note;  in 
Mass,  in  1630,  303,  304 ;  in  1640, 
313-314;  in  1664,  326,  328-329; 
in  1684,  334-335;  in  1690,  33<T 
337;  in  Plymouth,  348-349;  in 
Maine,  352  note;  in  Mass,  under 
charter  of  1691,  355~357;  in 
New  England  compared  with 
N.  Y.  and  Va.,  357;  in  N.  H.,  in 
1680,  373;  in  Conn.  1639  to 
1662,  387  and  note  4,  388,  390; 
in  New  Haven,  393,  398;  in 
Conn.,  after  1662,  408,  418-420; 
in  R.  I.,  453,  471-472;  in  col 
onies  generally,  487-488. 

Number  of  representatives,  in  Pa., 
274,  282. 

Oath  of  allegiance  required  of 
electors  in  Md.,  51,  56;  in  N.  J., 
232 ;  in  Mass.,  322,  325,  331,  332 ; 
in  Plymouth,  342,  347 ;  in  N.  H., 
374 ;  in  Conn.,  409 ;  in  R.  L,  448. 

Oath  of  fidelity,  required  of  elect 
ors  in  Mass.,  308;  oath  given, 
309  note;  of  inhabitants,  309; 
of  town  electors,  318;  in  Ply 
mouth,  required  of  freemen,  342, 
343,  345,  366 ;  in  Mass.,  362,  366 ; 
in  Conn.,  382-384,  386,  410;  in 
New  Haven,  395,  400;  in  R.  I. 
towns,  435  ;  in  R.  L,  442. 

Oath  of  inhabitants,  in  Mass.,  359; 
in  Plymouth,  342,  343. 


508 


Index. 


Oath  of  supremacy,  in  Mass.,  331. 

Oaths  as  qualifications  of  electors, 
in  England,  3,  4,  6,  7;  in  Va.  in 
1652,  27;  in  Md.,  75;  in  N.  C, 
92,  108;  in  S.  C,  140,  146;  in 
Ga.,  173;  in  N.  Y.,  212,  214;  in 
R.  I,  458;  against  bribery,  459, 
461. 

Oaths  required  of  representatives, 
92. 

Office-holding,  as  qualification  of 
electors,  in  Mass.,  362;  in  Conn., 
386,  388. 

Officers,  elective  under  Duke's 
Laws  in  N.  Y.,  204. 

Oglethorpe,  James,  military  gov 
ernor  of  Ga.,  164,  165,  167. 

Ordinance,  proprietary,  fixes  suf 
frage  qualifications  in  Md.,  67. 

Orthodoxy,  defined  in  Mass.,  306, 
and  note;  required  of  electors 
in  Mass,  in  law  of  1664,  324; 
in  Plymouth,  346;  required  of 
ministers  in  Mass.,  364;  in  New 
Haven,  required  of  all  churches, 
396. 

Outvoters.     See  Non-residents. 

Owen,  William,  leads  factious  op 
position  in  S.  C.  in  1669-1671, 
124-126. 

Oxford,  University  of,  suffrage  in, 
1 6. 

Oyster  Bay,  L.  I.,  union  with  New 
Haven,  401  note. 

Parish  elections,  in  Va.,  33,  45 ;  in 
Md.,  76-77;  in  N.  C,  118-120; 
voting  in,  made  compulsory, 
119;  compared  with  other  south 
ern  colonies,  ibid.;  in  S.  C., 
159-160;  compared  with  other 
southern  colonies,  160 ;  in  N. 
Y.,  limited  to  inhabiting  free 
holders,  224;  in  N.  H.,  by  tax 
payers,  378.  See  also  Church 
Elections. 

Parliament,  proposed  for  Va.,  18 ; 
in  Carolina,  123-127. 

Parochial  burgesses,  in  Va.,  24-26. 

Particulars,  a  class  of  settlers  in 
Plymouth,  339;  a  dissatisfied 
faction,  340. 

Partners,  admission  of  in  Ply 
mouth,  303  note. 

Patroons.  concessions  to,  in  New 
Netherland,  174. 


Patuxett,  R.  L,  freemen  admitted, 
441. 

Penn,  William,  interested  in  West 
Jersey,  244;  receives  charter 
from  king,  273;  promises  self- 
government  to  his  settlers,  274; 
laws  made  in  England,  275; 
arrival  in  province,  276 ;  govern 
ment  restored  to,  279;  grants 
charter  to  province,  281 ;  by 
charter  receives  power  to  incor 
porate  towns,  294. 

Pennsylvania,  position  of  Dela 
ware  lands  before  Penn's  con 
trol,  273 ;  royal  charter  to  Penn, 
273 ;  Penn's  promise  of  popular 
government,  274;  plans  of  gov 
ernment,  274 ;  freeman  and 
freeholder,  275  ;  qualifications  of 
electors  in  Laws  made  in  Eng 
land,  275 ;  naturalization  act, 
276;  suffrage  under  the  Great 
Law,  276;  use  of  ballot,  277- 
278;  Penn  dispossessed  of  his 
territory,  278 ;  Fletcher's  frame, 
278-279 ;  Markham's  frame, 
279;  fines  upon  counties  re 
fusing  to  elect  representatives, 
280;  separation  of  lower  coun 
ties,  280-281 ;  suffrage  act  of 
1700,  281 ;  act  of  1706,  282-283; 
election  evils,  283-285  ;  effort  to 
strengthen  election  laws,  ibid.; 
tax-list  of  1693,  286:  tax-list  of 
1754,  287 ;  tax-list  of  1776,  288- 
289;  tax-list  of  1775,  290-291; 
observations  upon  the  suffrage 
based  on  these  lists,  290-292; 
local  suffrage,  292-299 ;  difficul 
ties  of  subject,  292-293;  early 
local  organization,  294-295 ; 
county  elections,  295  ;  township 
officers,  296 ;  borough  elections, 
296-297;  suffrage  in  Philadel 
phia,  297-298 ;  incorporated  dis 
tricts,  298-299. 

Perth  Amboy,  N.  J.,  suffrage  in, 
249,  253,  255. 

Petition,  from  non-freemen  in 
Mass.,  316;  of  N.  H.  settlers  for 
union  with  Mass.,  376. 

Petition  of  Right,  of  Pa.,  278. 

Philadelphia,  Pa.,  scot  and  lot 
voters  in,  278 ;  charter  of,  279 
note;  election  irregularities  in, 
282 ;  effect  of  property  qualifica- 


Index. 


tion  upon  voters  in,  282  note; 
petitions  against  election  law, 
283 ;  bloody  election  in,  285 ; 
lists  of  taxables  in,  286-292; 
number  of  electors,  ibid.;  rea 
son  for  restricted  suffrage,  290 
note;  compared  with  N.  Y.,  292; 
absence  of  early  records,  293 ; 
called  a  town,  295  note;  may 
have  received  a  borough  charter, 
296  note  2;  charter  of  1691,  297; 
charter  of  1701,  297;  absence  of 
popular  government  in,  297-298 ; 
administrative  boards  in,  298 ; 
electors  in  local  elections,  ibid. 

Pirates,  as  electors  in  S.  C.,  133. 

Places  of  election,  in  England,  7. 

Plebsbytery,  316. 

Plowden,  Sir  Edmund,  palatinate 
of,  260. 

Plural  nomination  for  office,  in  N. 
C.,  117,  118;  in  New  Nether- 
land,  177,  178,  189,  195,  196;  in 
N.  J.,  227,  235,  242 ;  in  Del.,  262, 
264,  268,  271;  in  Pa.,  283,  295; 
in  Plymouth,  366. 

Plural  voting,  in  England,  6 ;  per 
mitted  in  Va.,  39 ;  permitted  in 
S.  C.  after  1745,  156;  in  N.  Y., 
based  on  English  custom,  215 
and  note  2,  216-217;  in  Pa.,  pro 
posed  for  Philadelphia  inhabi 
tants,  282 ;  instances  of  illegal, 
285 ;  adopted  by  the  Free  So 
ciety  of  Traders  in  Pa.,  294;  in 
N.  H.,  377;  in  Conn.,  illegal, 
to  be  punished  with  fine,  410. 

Plymouth,  admission  of  partners, 
303  note;  Mayflower  compact, 
338;  nature  of  association,  ibid.; 
stock  company,  339-340;  gen 
eral  and  particular  settlers,  340 ; 
latter  admitted  to  corporation, 
341 ;  code  of  laws  of  1636,  341- 
342 ;  position  of  freemen.  342 ; 
control  over  town  inhabitants, 
342-343;  religious  qualifications, 
343-344;  non-freemen  as  elect 
ors,  344;  inhabitants  admitted 
irregularly,  344-345 ;  terms  of 
admission  of  freemen,  345-346; 
religious  qualifications,  346-347 ; 
royal  commissioners'  visit,  347~~ 
348;  religious  liberty,  ibid.; 
number  of  freemen,  348-349 ; 
included  under  Mass,  charter 


of  1691,  353 ;  local  elections, 
357-369  passim. 

Political  tests  as  qualification  of 
suffrage,  in  England,  3 ;  in 
Mass.,  362. 

Polls,  method  of  taking  in  Eng 
land,  7;  time  for  holding  in 
N.  C,  102;  in  S.  C,  141,  145; 
method  of  conducting  in  N.  Y., 
212;  time  for  holding,  217;  in 
N.  J.,  250;  in  Del.,  270;  in  Pa., 
282. 

Poll-tax,  importance  of,  in  N.  C, 
92. 

Pomfret,  borough  suffrage  in,  13 
note. 

Popular  elections,  of  governor,  in 
Va.,  23;  of  governor,  proposed 
in  Dutch  concessions,  186  note; 
of  "  President"  John  Scott  on 
Long  Island,  187;  of  president, 
in  N.  J.,  in  1672,  234;  did  not 
exist  in  Swedish  settlements  on 
Delaware,  259—261 ;  beginnings 
of  under  the  Dutch,  262;  fa 
vored  by  Stuyvesant,  262  note; 
demand  for,  263  note;  popular 
election  in  colony  of  city  of 
Amsterdam,  264 ;  absence  of 
under  Duke  of  York's  govern 
ment,  267-268 ;  non-existent  on 
Delaware  before  Penn's  time, 
274;  promised  by  Penn,  274. 

Popular  meetings,  in  Dutch  settle 
ments  on  Delaware,  262,  263. 

Portsmouth,  N.  H.,  settlement 
of,  370;  compact  of  settlers, 
371 ;  requests  union  with 
Mass.,  372;  number  of  voters 
in,  373  note  4- 

Portsmouth,  R.  I.,  union  with 
Newport,  431 ;  town  agreement, 
433;  organization  of  govern 
ment,  437 ;  union  with  Newport, 
438. 

Potential  voters,  number  of,  in 
Mass.,  356-357. 

Potwallopers,  defined,  n  ;  as  elect 
ors  in  England,  ibid. 

Preparatory  meeting,  in  R.  I.,  for 
admission  of  freemen,  450  note 
2. 

Presbyterians,  in  Mass.,  demand 
political  rights  in  1646,  315. 

Printz,  Governor,  of  New  Sweden, 
261. 


Index. 


Probation,  term  of,  required  of 
freemen,  in  Mass.,  admitted 
under  law  of  1664,  330 ;  repealed, 
330  note,  333 ;  required  of  free 
men,  in  Plymouth,  345,  346;  in 
Conn.,  408-409;  abolished,  413; 
in  R.  I.,  three  months,  461. 

Property,  general,  as  qualification 
of  electors,  attempt  to  obtain  in 
Va.,  30;  in  S.  C,  146;  pro 
posed  in  Mass,  in  1646,  316;  in 
Plymouth,  347;  in  Mass,  town 
elections,  362,  363 ;  in  N.  H.,  .in 
1680,  374;  in  Conn.,  386,  404, 
408-409;  in  R.  I.,  448-449;  in 
colonies  generally,  478. 

Property,  personal,  as  qualifica 
tion  of  electors  in  Md.  in  1670, 
62,  71 ;  in  S.  C.  in  1692,  132 ; 
opposed  by  proprietors,  133; 
again  enacted,  135 ;  an  alterna 
tive  to  freehold,  140;  in  East 
Jersey  fundamentals,  as  alterna 
tive  to  freehold,  a  rented  house 
and  £50  stock,  239;  favored  by 
governor  in  N.  J.,  251,  255 ;  £50, 
accepted  by  Board  of  Trade, 
252;  opposed  by  proprietors, 
253-254;  in  Del,  £40,  270;  in 
Pa.  in  1694,  £50,  279,  281 ;  in 
1705,  282;  in  Mass,  under  char 
ter  of  1691,  354;  controversy 
concerning  amount,  ibid.;  in  N. 
H.  in  1699,  376;  in  Conn,  in 
1659,  388;  in  1702,  £40,  414;  in 
colonies  generally,  480-481. 

Property,  real,  as  qualification  of 
electors.  See  Freehold. 

Property,  taxable,  S.  C.  in  1717, 
149;  in  1721,  153;  in  1734,  154; 
in  1739,  ibid.;  in  1759,  158. 

Proportional  voting,  in  Mass., 
concerning  land  matters,  368 ;  in 
N.  H.,  378;  in  Conn.,  427-428; 
in  Providence,  R.  I.,  435. 

Proprietors,  as  electors  in  West 
Jersey,  245;  opposed  extension 
of  suffrage,  253  ;  responsible  for 
high  suffrage  qualifications,  ibid. 

Proprietors  of  town  lands.  See 
Corporations,  Economic,  and 
Commoners. 

Providence,  R.  I.,  agreement 
among  settlers,  432;  admission 
of  inhabitants,  434-435 ;  quarter- 
right  inhabitants,  435;  freemen 


in,  436 ;  organization  of  govern 
ment,  437 ;  freemen  admitted, 
441 ;  laws  read  in  town  meet 
ing,  445;  commoners  in,  469; 
number  of  freemen  in,  472. 

Proxy  voting,  illegal  in  English 
elections,  3 ;  permitted  in  House 
of  Lords,  3  note;  in  Va.,  22 ;  for 
bidden,  26;  in  Md.,  50-55;  dis 
courages  personal  attendance, 
130;  arose  in  S.  C.,  130;  op 
posed  by  proprietors  as  contrary 
to  English  precedent,  131 ;  for 
bidden,  140;  in  Barbadoes,  141 
note;  not  adopted  in  New 
Netherland,  176;  existed  on 
Long  Island,  176  note,  192,  207, 
210  note;  in  Mass.,  311 ;  only  a 
method  of  balloting,  ibid.;  in 
Plymouth,  349  note;  in  New 
Haven,  397;  in  Conn.,  discon 
tinued  for  a  time  under  charter 
of  1662,  407;  restored,  411; 
again  temporarily  forbidden, 
413;  general  history  of,  416-417; 
concerning  land  matters,  429; 
in  R.  I.,  437-438,  439,  442~444, 
447,  463-467 ;  Lord  Bellomont 
believes  it  illegal,  466  note  7. 

Public  Houses,  thrown  open  at 
election  times  in  Pa.,  285. 

Purchasers,  in  Providence,  R.  I., 
469. 

Puritans,  ideals  of,  300 ;  motive 
for  founding  colony  of  Mass., 
300-301 ;  political  ideals  of,  304- 
305 ;  church  organization,  363- 
364 ;  early  settlers  of  Conn.,  380 ; 
their  persecution  of  dissenters, 
430. 

Quakers,  excluded  from  Hemp- 
stead,  L.  I.,  192;  cause  dis 
turbances  in  elections,  ibid.;  in 
Mass.,  measures  against,  320- 
321 ;  in  Mass.,  change  in  atti 
tude  toward,  330;  in  Plymouth, 
disfranchised,  346;  restored  to 
franchise,  347;  in  Conn.,  ex 
cluded  from  church  elections, 
when  they  do  not  contribute  to 
support,  424 ;  disfranchised,  in 
colonies  generally,  475. 

Qualifications  of  electors.  See  Age, 
Borough  Franchise,  Character, 
Citizenship,  Freehold,  Freemen, 


Index. 


Inhabitants,  Oaths,  Property, 
Race,  Religion,  Residence,  Sex, 
Tax-paying. 

Quarry,  Colonel,  reports  election 
irregularities  in  N.  J.,  250;  ad 
vises  Board  of  Trade  respecting 
N.  J,  254- 

Quarter-right  inhabitants,  in 
Providence,  R.  I.,  435,  469. 

Quintipartite  deed,  between  N.  J. 
proprietors,  235. 

Quit-rents,  proprietary,  in  N.  J., 
influence  the  suffrage,  231,  233, 
241-242. 

Quorum  of  assembly,  in  N.  G,  92, 
103,  104,  107,  no. 


Race,  as  qualification  of  electors, 
free  negroes,  mulattoes,  and  In 
dians  disfranchised  in  Va.  in 
1723,  36;  opposition  to  dis- 
franchisement  in  England,  37; 
negroes,  mulattoes,  and  Indians 
excluded  in  N.  C.,  92 ;  negroes 
occasionally  vote  in  S.  C.,  137 ; 
suffrage  limited  to  white  race  in 
S.  C.  in  1716,  146,  153,  155,  157; 
white  race  in  Ga.,  172;  in  col 
onies  generally,  474. 

Raleigh,  Sir  Walter,  royal  charter 
to,  80. 

Randolph,  Edward,  opposes  Mass, 
suffrage  restriction,  319  note  3; 
general  attitude,  330;  criticises 
Mass.,  331 ;  secures  separation 
of  N.  H.  and  Mass.,  373. 

Re-apportionment  of  representa 
tives,  contest  over  in  N.  C,  97; 
opposed  by  people,  98 ;  economic 
reasons  for,  103 ;  ordained  by 
irregular  assembly,  104;  refused 
by  English  government,  107, 
108. 

Referendum,  popular,  in  R.  I., 
444-445 ;  discontinued  under 
charter  of  1663,  447. 

Refusal  to  admit  freemen,  in 
Conn.,  409,  414 ;  in  R.  I.,  447 ;  to 
admit  inhabitants  to  towns,  in 
R.  I.,  467  note  2. 

Refusal  to  elect  representatives  in 
Del.,  269,  280;  punishment  for, 
ibid. 

Register  of  county,  in  N.  C,  elec 
tion  of,  117. 


Regulators,  in  N.  C.,  112-113. 

Religion,  as  qualification  of  elec 
tors,  in  England,  3,  4 ;  re 
cusant  convicts  disfranchised  in 
Va.,  35;  Catholics  excluded  in 
Md.,  56,  58,  69,  71-72,  74,  78; 
Christians  only  as  electors  in 
S.  C.,  146,  153,  155;  Protestants 
after  1759,  157;  conformists 
only  in  parish  elections,  160 ; 
Catholics  disfranchised  in  N.  Y. 
in  1689,  201 ;  permanently  in 
1701,  214;  Jews  disfranchised 
in  1737,  214-215 ;  in  Pa.  in  1682, 
belief  in  Jesus  Christ,  275,  276; 
in  Mass,  must  be  church-mem 
bers,  304;  evil  consequences  of, 
305-306 ;  church-membership 
defined,  306-307;  Quakers,  Bap 
tists,  and  opposers  of  church 
laws  disfranchised,  320-321 ;  op 
posed  by  Charles  II.,  322-323, 
and  by  his  commissioners, 
323-326;  effect  of  law  of  1664, 
324;  Randolph's  opinion  of, 
331 ;  denied  by  Mass,  agents, 
331 ;  members  of  Church  of 
England  not  excluded,  333; 
electors  must  be  Protestants, 
333;  in  force  in  1690,  336;  but 
not  after  charter  of  1691,  337; 
in  Plymouth,  343-344;  mem 
bership  in  approved  churches, 
346;  in  Mass.,  not  required  of 
Maine  inhabitants,  352;  but 
later  restored,  ibid.;  repealed  by 
charter  of  1691,  353-354;  but 
foreign  Catholics  excluded,  355 ; 
church  elections,  only  communi 
cants  could  vote,  364;  later  at 
tendants,  ibid.;  not  enforced  in 
N.  H.  towns,  372;  in  N.  H., 
Protestants  only  in  1680,  374; 
in  early  Conn.,  384-385,  389;  in 
New  Haven,  390-405  ;  proposed 
by  Conn,  in  negotiations  with 
New  Haven,  404 ;  in  New 
Haven,  overthrown  by  Conn, 
charter  of  1662,  406 ;  royal  com 
missioners  oppose,  448 ;  in  R.  I., 
Catholics  and  Jews  excluded  in 
1719,  451-452;  in  colonies  gen 
erally,  475-476. 

Religious  liberty,  promised  by 
Charles  II.,  322 ;  cause  espoused 
by  Charles,  323 ;  royal  com- 


512 


Index. 


missioners'  opinion  upon,  326; 
in  Plymouth,  347. 

Reluctance  to  perform  political 
duties,  in  Mass.,  308. 

Rent-charges,  as  freeholds  in 
England,  9. 

Repeal  of  colonial  legislation,  in 
N.  C,  106  and  note;  by  S.  C. 
proprietors,  149,  152;  in  N.  Y., 
by  partisan  legislature,  212 ;  by 
Queen,  213. 

Representation,  theory  of,  in  Md., 
65 ;  among  N.  C.  Regulators, 
113;  as  held  by  Governor  John 
son  in  S.  C,  in  1719,  150;  held 
by  Stuyvesant  in  New  Nether- 
land,  178,  185;  by  English  on 
Long  Island,  182  note;  by  New 
Netherland  assembly  of  1653, 
184;  in  N.  Y.,  213  note  2;  in 
assembly  of  East  Jersey,  237; 
held  by  George  Scot  in  1685, 
240;  in  West  Jersey,  246;  held 
by  N.  J.  proprietors,  253-254; 
by  Pa.  assembly  in  1699,  280; 
in  England  in  eighteenth  cen 
tury,  354;  in  Conn.,  406;  on 
Rhode  Island,  438-439. 

Representative  institutions,  first 
assembly  in  Va.,  19-21 ;  estab 
lished  under  royal  instructions, 
23;  in  Md.,  50-55;  among  the 
N.  C.  Regulators,  112-113;  in 
S.  C,  123,  125 ;  favored  by  pro 
prietors,  127;  early  origin  of, 
129;  origin  of,  in  Ga.,  166-168; 
relation  to  slavery,  168 ;  recog 
nized  by  trustees,  ibid.;  pur 
pose  of  according  to  trustees, 
169 ;  established  by  royal  in 
structions,  171 ;  origin  of  in 
New  Netherland,  174;  the 
Twelve  Men,  ibid.;  the  Eight 
Men,  176;  they  demand  repre 
sentative  system,  177;  Cham 
ber  of  Accounts  of  West  India 
Company  recommend  represen 
tative  government,  177;  the 
Nine  Men,  177-180;  States- 
General  favor,  180;  character 
of  early  representative  boards, 
181 ;  proposed  assembly  of 
Sept.,  1653,  182;  assembly  of 
Dec.,  1653,  183-185;  assembly 
of  1663,  187;  of  1664,  188;  ori 
gin  of  in  N.  Y.,  Hempstead 


meeting  of  1665,  198;  assembly 
of  1683,  199;  Leisler's  assembly, 
201-202 ;  permanently  estab 
lished  in  1691,  210;  in  N.  J., 
230,  232;  irregular  assemblies, 
234 ;  Andros  assembly,  237 ;  un 
der  East  Jersey  Fundamentals, 
240;  conditioned  upon  payment 
of  quit-rents,  242 ;  in  West  Jer 
sey  concessions,  246-247;  as 
suggested  to  king  by  proprie 
tors,  248;  as  adopted  under 
royal  government,  249;  in  Pa., 
origin  of,  273,  274,  276;  origin 
of,  in  Mass.,  310;  origin  of,  in 
Maine,  35O~35i.;  .in  N.  H.,  375, 
376  note  i ;  origin  of,  in  Conn., 
381 ;  as  determined  by  charter, 
405 ;  in  R.  L,  438,  440,  442~444, 
446. 

Representatives,  apportionment 
of,  in  S.  C.,  131 ;  character  of, 
in  N.  Y.,  21 1 ;  number  of,  in 
West  Jersey,  247;  number  of, 
in  R.  I.,  446. 

Representatives,  qualifications  of, 
in  Va.,  in  1655,  28;  in  N.  C., 
100 ;  in  S.  C,  147,  148,  151,  153, 
156;  in  Ga.,  silk  culture  re 
quired,  169-170,  171,  173;  in  N. 
Y.,  212 ;  in  N.  J.,  proposed,  248 ; 
fixed,  249;  opposition  to,  251; 
belief  in  Christ,  in  Pa.,  281 ;  in 
Mass.,  319  note  4 ;  in  N.  H.,  377. 

Residence  as  qualification  of  elec 
tors,  early  required  in  England, 
6;  but  later  not  enforced,  ibid.; 
in  English  boroughs,  n,  12,  13, 
14;  in  county,  required  in  Va. 
in  1705,  36;  abolished  in  Va. 
in  1736,  39;  in  Md.,  73;  in  N. 
C.,  one  year,  92 ;  six  months, 
100,  in  ;  S.  C.  proprietors  favor 
and  repeal  law  not  providing 
for,  133;  three  months  in  col 
ony,  136;  three  months  in  pre 
cinct,  140;  six  months  in  prov 
ince,  146;  six  months  in  parish, 
148;  one  year  in  province,  1^53, 
155,  157;  in  Ga.,  six  months  in 
province,  172;  in  N.  Y.,  required 
of  freemen  electors,  212 ;  in 
New  York  City,  221-222 ;  in  Al 
bany,  N.  Y.,  223 ;  in  Del.,  two 
years  in  colony,  270 ;  in  Pa.  in 
1694,  two  years  in  province,  279, 


Index. 


513 


282;  in  Lancaster,  Pa.,  297;  in 
Conn.,  383;  in  colonies  gen 
erally,  477-478. 

Residenters,  taxed  in  N.  Y.,  223 
note. 

Residents,  as  electors  in  early 
Conn.,  382. 

Retford,  East,  borough  suffrage 
in,  14. 

Returns  of  elections,  in  N.  C.,  92. 

Revolutionary  movements,  in  Md., 
in  1689,  69-70;  in  N.  C.,  89; 
in  S.  C,  in  1719,  150;  in  N.  Y., 
in  1689,  201-202;  in  East  Jer 
sey,  242-243 ;  in  Mass.,  in  1689- 
1690,  335;  in  N.  H.,  375;  in 
Conn.,  in  1689,  412. 

Rhett,  William,  unpopular  friend 
of  proprietors  in  S.  C.,  143. 

Rhode  Island,  influence  of  Mass, 
in  forming,  430;  indigenous 
political  organization  in  R.  I. 
towns,  430-431 ;  town  associa 
tions,  431 ;  union  of  towns,  431- 
432;  town  freemanship  ante 
dated  colony  freemanship,  431- 
432;  organization  of  Provi 
dence,  432 ;  town  agreements  of 
Portsmouth  and  Newport,  433 ; 
terms  of  admission  of  new  set 
tlers,  434~437 ;  development  of 
town  organization,  437 ;  union 
of  towns  on  Rhode  Island,  438- 
439;  union  under  charter  of 
1644,  439-440;  qualifications  of 
freemen,  440-442 ;  ballot  and 
proxy  system,  442-443 ;  repre 
sentative  system,  443-444 ;  popu 
lar  initiative  of  laws,  444 ;  popu 
lar  referendum,  444-445 ;  union 
under  charter  of  1663,  446; 
terms  of  charter,  446-447;  ad 
mission  of  freemen  under,  447; 
good  character  and  indefinite 
property  qualification  upon  free 
men,  448-449 ;  compulsory  free 
manship,  450;  freemanship  re 
stricted  to  Protestant  Chris 
tians,  451-452 ;  increase  in  num 
ber  of  freemen,  453 ;  franchise 
limited  to  freeholders  of  i  100  or 
forty  shillings  income  in  1724, 
454;  eldest  sons  of  such  free 
holders  also  admitted,  454-455; 
English  precedent  for  this,  455- 
456 ;  effect  of  paper  money  upon 


suffrage  qualifications,  456-457; 
nominal  qualifications  increased 
in  1730,  457;  stringent  legisla 
tion  against  fraud  in  elections, 
457-458 ;  qualifications  again  in 
creased  in  1746,  458;  freemen 
required  to  be  permanently  pos 
sessed  of  freehold,  458;  oath 
against  bribery,  459;  freeman's 
qualifications  based  upon  procla 
mation  money,  460;  elaborate 
election  laws  of  1762  and  1767, 
460-462 ;  summary  of  property 
qualifications,  462 ;  proxy  sys 
tem  and  balloting,  463-467 ; 
ballot  evils,  466;  local  suffrage, 
467-471 ;  town  elections,  467- 
468;  suffrage  concerning  land 
matters,  469;  militia  suffrage, 
470-471 ;  number  of  freemen 
and  electors,  471-472. 

Richmond,  borough  suffrage  in,  3 
note,  13  note,  14. 

Rights,  natural,  appealed  to  in 
New  Netherland,  184;  in  N.  J. 
in  1704,  251. 

Rights,  of  Englishmen.  See  Eng 
lishmen,  rights  of. 

Rye,  borough  suffrage  in,  14. 

Saco,  Maine,  settlement  at,  350. 

Sailors,  as  electors  in  S.  C.,  138, 
147;  excluded,  149. 

Salem,  N.  J.,  suffrage  in,  253,  255 
note. 

Salisbury,  N.  C.,  suffrage  in,  115. 

Sandwich,  borough  suffrage  in,  14. 

Sandys,  Sir  Edwin,  favors  Puri 
tans  in  Virginia  Company,  18. 

Sanhedrim,  applied  to  ruling  party 
in  Mass.,  331. 

Sarum,  Old,  borough  suffrage  in, 
13- 

Sayle,  William,  governor  of  S.  C, 
124. 

Scot  and  lot,  payment  of,  as  quali 
fication  of  electors,  in  England, 
11,  15;  in  Pa.  under  Laws  made 
in  England,  275,  276;  omitted 
in  1693,  278. 

Scott,  John,  by  popular  choice 
elected  "president"  on  Long 
Island,  187,  194. 

Scrutiny,  term  used  for  ballot  in 
English  universities,  16. 

Separatists,  301. 


33 


Index. 


Sergeant-major-general,  in  Mass., 
how  elected,  365  note  4. 

Servants  as  electors  in  N.  C,  no; 
in  S.  C,  137,  147;  excluded, 
149;  disfranchised  in  Albany, 
N.  Y.,  223;  when  freed,  in  Pa., 
required  to  possess  only  fifty 
acres  of  land  as  voters,  276; 
vote  in  Philadelphia,  282 ;  as 
electors  in  Pa.,  284;  excluded 
from  militia  elections  in  Mass., 
365,  and  in  Plymouth,  366. 

Sex,  as  qualification  of  electors,  in 
England,  2,  3  note ;  women  ex 
cluded  in  Va.,  35 ;  woman  suf 
frage  refused  in  Md.,  54;  in  S. 
C.  in  1716,  limited  to  men,  146, 
153,  155,  157;  Lady  Moody  as 
elector  in  Gravesend,  L.  I.,  192- 
193 ;  in  Del.,  male  sex  required, 
270;  in  R.  I.,  women  in  town 
elections,  434  note  I ;  in  colonies 
generally,  473-474. 

Sheriffs,  election  of,  in  Del.,  271 ; 
mode  of  electing  in  Pa.,  283,  295. 

Silk  culture,  in  Ga.,  fostered  by 
trustees,  164 ;  made  a  qualifica 
tion  of  representatives,  169. 

Simsbury,  Conn.,  land  matters  in, 
427. 

Slaughter,  George,  governor  of  N. 
Y.,  209. 

Slaveholders,  as  electors  in  S.  C., 

153-154. 

Slavery,  forbidden  in  Ga.,  164 ; 
petitions  in  favor  of,  166 ;  de 
sire  for,  leads  to  popular  gov 
ernment,  168. 

Slaves,  value  of,  compared  with 
that  of  land  in  S.  C,  154. 

Smith,  John,  in  Va.,  19. 

Sojourners,  taxed  in  N.  Y.,  223 
note;  perhaps  included  in  term 
inhabitants,  in  Mass.,  359. 

Soldiers,  as  electors,  in  Mass., 
365-366 ;  in  Plymouth,  in  militia 
elections,  366 ;  in  Conn,  militia 
elections,  425;  in  militia  elec 
tions,  in  R.  I.,  470-471. 

Sons,  eldest,  of  freeholders,  in  R. 
I.,  to  be  admitted  as  freemen, 
454;  English  precedent  for,  455. 

Southampton,  L.  I.,  terms  of  ad 
mission  of  inhabitants,  204 ;  suf 
frage  in,  206,  225. 


South  Carolina,  division  of  Caro 
lina  into  distinct  provinces,  122 ; 
legal  name  of  S.  C,  122  note; 
instructions  for  settlement  of 
government,  123 ;  concessions  to 
settlers,  123-124;  arrival  of  set 
tlers  and  first  election,  124 ;  first 
assembly,  125;  early  representa 
tive  organization,  126-127 ;  pro 
prietors  attempt  to  establish  par 
liaments,  127-129 ;  distinction  be 
tween  freemen  and  freeholders, 
130;  Huguenots  and  the  suf 
frage,  130-132,  133-135;  prop 
erty  qualification  upon  electors 
in  1692,  132 ;  law  opposed  by 
proprietors,  133 ;  naturalization, 
acts,  134,  141-142;  election  act 
of  1703,  135-136;  contest  be 
tween  Anglicans  and  dissenters, 
136-140 ;  members  of  assembly 
must  be  communicants  of 
Church  of  England,  139;  elec 
tion  act  of  1704  fixes  suffrage 
qualifications  at  fifty  acres  of 
land  or  £10  personal  estate,  140 ; 
use  of  ballot  in  all  elections, 
141 ;  election  evils,  142 ;  reasons 
for  discontent  in  1717,  142-143; 
all  elections  held  in  Charleston, 
144;  abolished  in  1716,  145; 
election  act  of  1716,  £30  prop 
erty  required  of  electors,  Jews 
and  negroes  excluded,  146; 
paper  currency  and  its  effect 
upon  suffrage,  147;  in  1717  elec 
tors  must  hold  fifty  acres  of 
land  or  pay  taxes,  148 ;  proprie 
tors  repeal  acts  of  1716  and 
1717,  149;  revolutionary  move 
ment,  150-152;  election  act  of 
1719,  151 ;  of  1721  requires  elec 
tors  to  possess  fifty  acres  of 
land,  or  pay  twenty  shillings 
taxes,  153;  meaning  of  tax-pay 
ing,  154 ;  qualifications  of  elec 
tors  increased  in  1745,  155 ; 
plural  voting  permitted,  156; 
Governor  Glen  opposes  ballot, 
156-157;  qualifications  of  elec 
tors  lowered  in  1759,  157;  at 
same  time  Catholics  disfran 
chised,  157-158;  local  suffrage, 
159-161 ;  parish  elections,  150- 
161 ;  character  of  S.  C.  church, 


Index. 


515 


160 ;  summary  of  suffrage  pro 
visions,  161. 

South  Company,  Swedish,  260. 

Southold,  L.  I.,  agreements  of 
settlers,  391 ;  origin  of  govern 
ment,  394 ;  popular  movement 
in,  400 ;  sends  deputies  to  Hart 
ford,  402. 

Southwark,  Pa.,  an  incorporated 
district  in  Phila.  Co.,  299. 

Splitting  of  freeholds,  in  England, 
8,  9 ;  in  Va.,  38 ;  in  N.  Y.,  206. 

Spotswood,  Governor,  of  Va.,  37. 

Springfield,  Mass.,  method  of  ad 
mitting  freemen,  309. 

St.  Albans,  borough  suffrage  in, 
14. 

St.  Mary's,  Md.,  elections  in,  63, 
66. 

Stamford,  Conn.,  popular  move 
ment  in,  399-400;  inhabitants 
admitted  to  Conn,  freemanship, 
402. 

Stephens,  Samuel,  governor  of  N. 
C,  85. 

Stockholders,   in    Plymouth,  339- 

341. 

Stone,  Governor,  of  Md.,  57. 

Strangers,  as  electors  in  S.  C.,  138. 

Stratford,  Conn.,  admission  of 
freemen  in,  386. 

Strawberry  Bank,  N.  H.  See 
Portsmouth. 

Stuyvesant,  Peter,  governor  of 
New  Netherland,  177;  attitude 
toward  Nine  Men,  178-179; 
theory  of  popular  government, 
178,  185;  last  assembly  of  New 
Netherland  called  by,  188 ;  con 
quers  Swedes  on  Delaware,  261. 

Sudbury,  borough  suffrage  in,  14. 

Suffrage,  extension  of,  in  S.  C. 
and  Va.  before  Revolution,  159; 
in  N.  J.,  249  note;  demanded  in 
N.  J.  at  outset  of  American 
Revolution,  255 ;  in  Mass,  not 
advanced  by  agitation,  318;  pro 
posed  in  1663,  323  note;  in  1690, 
335-337;  in  Plymouth,  340;  in 
New  Haven,  410;  in  Conn,  in 
1689,  413. 

Suffrage,  popular,  did  not  exist  in 
Delaware  lands  before  Penn's 
time,  273. 

Suffrage,  qualifications  for.  See 
Qualifications  of  Electors. 


Suffrage,  restriction  of,  favored 
by  governor  in  N.  C.,  97 ;  oppo 
sition  to  in  N.  J.,  250,  251;  in 
Philadelphia,  Pa.,  reason  for, 
290  note;  in  Conn.,  389. 

Swaanendael,  Dutch  settlement  on 
Delaware,  259. 

Swedish  South  Company,  260. 

Synod,  Cambridge,  1646-1647,  307. 

Tarborough,    N.    C.,    suffrage    in, 

US- 

Taunton,  borough  suffrage  in,  12. 

Taxables,  classes  comprising,  in 
Va.  in  1659,  28  note;  defined  in 
N.  C,  93  note;  list  of,  used  in 
Pa.  in  judging  qualifications  of 
electors,  285;  list  for  Phila., 
1693,  286;  1754,  287;  for  part 
of  Phila.  Co.,  1776,  288-289;  for 
Berks  Co.,  1774,  289;  for  Phila. 
Co.,  1775,  290-291 ;  number  of, 
in  Mass.,  327-328 ;  lists,  of  Bos 
ton,  327-328 ;  number  of,  in  Ply 
mouth  in  1633,  348;  lists  of,  in 
Conn.,  used  to  judge  qualifica 
tions  of  freemen,  410  note  5. 

Taxation,  in  Mass.,  method  and 
amount  of,  327 ;  in  Conn.,  412. 

Taxation  and  representation,  in 
Va.,  32;  demand  for  union  of, 
in  Mass.,  315;  theory  of  in  Ply 
mouth,  344. 

Tax-paying,  as  qualification  of 
electors,  in  England,  8;  in  Va., 
21,  28;  in  N.  C.,  92,  109  note; 
in  S.  C,  148,  153,  157,  158;  in 
parishes,  160;  in  N.  Y.,  in  1665, 
198 ;  in  Mass,  under  law  of  1664, 
324,  332,  336 ;  in  N.  H.  town  and 
parish  elections,  378;  in  col 
onies  generally,  481. 

Tenants  as  electors  in  Va.  bor 
oughs,  42-43;  in  N.  C.  bor 
oughs,  114;  in  N.  J.  towns,  257. 

Tenth,  a  political  division  in  N.  J., 
244,  245. 

Test  oaths,  administered  to  repre 
sentatives  in  Del.,  270 ;  in  Pa., 
281. 

Tinicum  Island,  Pa.,  court  estab 
lished  at,  267;  perhaps  contin 
ued  at  Upland,  268  note. 

Title,  proprietary,  an  essential 
to  a  legal  freehold  in  N.  J.,  231, 
233,  234,  236-237. 


Index. 


Town  houses,  as  qualification  of 
electors,  requirements  concern 
ing,  in  Va.,  41. 

Town  lots,  as  qualification  of  elec 
tors,  in  Va.,  38,  39  note;  requi 
sites  for  "  saving"  in  N.  C,  93. 

Town  meetings,  in  N.  J.,  255,  257 ; 
not  established  on  the  Delaware 
by  Duke's  Laws,  267 ;  in  bor 
ough  of  Wilmington,  Del.,  272; 
in  Pa.,  occasionally  existed,  293 
note;  in  the  boroughs,  296-297; 
in  New  England,  effect  upon 
number  of  actual  voters,  357; 
in  R.  L,  437. 

Town  representation,  in  Va.,  26. 

Town  suffrage,  in  Va.,  46 ;  in  N. 
Y.,  limited  to  inhabiting  free 
holders,  223 ;  in  N.  J.,  249  note, 
253,  255-257;  in  Pa.,  295,  296; 
in  Mass.,  310;  in  1635  limited  to 
freemen,  317;  extended  to  some 
non-freemen,  318;  in  Plymouth, 
345  ;  in  Mass.,  357~363  ',  limited 
to  freemen,  361 ;  non-freemen 
may  become  electors,  361-362; 
in  N.  H.,  377-378;  in  New 
Haven,  limited  to  church-mem 
bers,  395,  420-421 ;  in  Conn., 
420-423;  in  R.  I.,  467-468. 

Towns,  military  reason  for  estab 
lishing,  in  Ga.,  171 ;  Dutch,  of 
New  Netherland,  possessed  few 
features  of  popular  government, 
189;  English,  of  New  Nether- 
land,  possessed  popular  govern 
ment,  190-191 ;  origin  of,  in 
Mass.,  357  note;  importance  of 
in  R.  I.  institutional  develop 
ment,  431. 

Township,  in  Pa.,  doubt  as  to 
origin  of,  293;  compared  with 
New  England  town,  ibid. 

Transient  persons,  electors  in 
Campbelton,  N.  C,  117;  electors 
in  S.  C,  148;  excluded,  149. 

Tregony,  borough  suffrage  in,  12. 

Trenton,  N.  J.,  charter  of,  256 
note. 

Triennial  assemblies,  in  N.  C, 
112;  in  N.  H.,  377. 

Trott,  Nicholas,  unpopular  friend 
of  proprietors  in  S.  C,  143. 

Trustees,  as  electors,  in  England, 
8 ;  not  to  vote  in  N.  Y.  in  virtue 
of  trust  freeholds,  213. 


Trustees  of  Georgia,  their  powers 
under  charter,  163;  the  board 
abolished,  170. 

Tryon,  William,  governor  of  N. 
C,  opposes  triennial  assemblies, 
112;  proclamation  against  Regu 
lators,  113. 

Twelve  Men,  the,  in  New  Nether- 
land,  174-175. 

Tynte,  Edward,  governor  of  S.  C., 
142. 

Unit  of  representation,  parishes 
and  counties  in  Va.,  22,  24-25 ; 
in  N.  C,  93 ;  in  N.  Y.,  in  1683, 
199;  exceedingly  large  in  N.  J., 
250. 

University  franchise,  in  Oxford 
and  Cambridge,  16;  College  of 
William  and  Mary  in  Va.,  44, 
483. 

Upland,  Pa.,  court  established  at, 
267;  analysis  of  activities  of 
court,  268;  perhaps  a  continua 
tion  of  court  at  Tinicum,  268 
note. 

Usselinx,  William,  260  note. 

Vestries,  select,  in  N.  C,  118. 

View,  deciding  elections  upon  the, 
in  England,  7;  in  Va.,  35;  in 
Pa.,  277- 

Virginia,  character  of  early  years 
of  colony,  17;  charters  of  Vir 
ginia  Company,  17;  the  company 
called  seditious,  17;  influence 
of  Puritans,  18 ;  improved  eco 
nomic  conditions,  in  Va.,  18 ; 
despotic  governors,  19;  charter 
of  privileges  for  colony,  19-20 ; 
ordinance  of  1621,  20;  first  as 
sembly,  20-21 ;  suffrage  in  early 
elections,  21 ;  ballot  or  proxy 
voting,  22 ;  Governor  Yeardley's 
rule,  22-23 ;  revolution  against 
Governor  Harvey,  23-24 ;  unit  of 
representation,  24-25 ;  parochial 
burgesses,  25-26 ;  compulsory 
viva  voce  suffrage,  26 ;  influence 
of  English  Civil  War,  27-29; 
attempt  to  limit  franchise  to 
housekeepers,  28;  life  council, 
29;  suffrage  under  Governor 
Berkeley,  29-30;  the  Va.  long 
parliament,  30 ;  attempt  to  limit 
suffrage  to  freeholders,  30;  in 


Index. 


517 


1670,  limited  to  freeholders  and 
housekeepers,  31 ;  Culpepper 
grants,  31-32;  causes  of  Bacon's 
Rebellion,  32 ;  Bacon's  attempt  to 
widen  suffrage  basis,  33;  royal 
instructions  of  1676  limit  fran 
chise  to  freeholders,  33-34;  act 
of  1684  adopts  this  provision, 
34;  women  and  Catholics  ex 
cluded  in  1699,  35;  election  de 
tails,  35-36;  negroes  excluded 
in  1705,  36;  election  evils,  37; 
minimum  freehold  established 
in  1736,  38-40;  fractional  voting, 
40;  act  of  1762  lowers  suffrage 
qualifications,  40-41 ;  borough 
suffrage,  42-44;  political  repre 
sentation  of  College  of  William 
and  Mary,  44;  local  suffrage, 
45-46;  number  of  electors,  46- 
47 ;  compared  with  Mass.,  47, 

357- 
Virginia    Company,    charters    of 

1606,  1609,  1612,  17;    changes  in 

organization,  18. 
Viva-voce  voting,  in  Va.,  22,  27  j 

adopted  in  N.  C  in  1760,  in; 

made  compulsory,  ibid.;    in  N. 

Y.,  212,  218;    in  Pa.,  277,  281, 

284;    in   Mass,   town  meetings, 

360-361   note;    in  R.  I.  towns, 

437- 
Vote-houses,  term   used  in   some 

English  boroughs,  12,  13. 
Voters.     See  Electors. 
Voters,  actual.    See  Actual. 
Voters,  potential.     See  Potential. 


Wagoners,  as  electors  in  Campbel- 
ton,  N.  C,  117. 

Warwick,  R.  I.,  agreement  among 
settlers,  431 ;  admission  of  in 
habitants,  436;  organization  of 
government,  437. 

Watertown,  Mass.,  town  suffrage 
in,  360;  rights  of  common  in, 
367- 

Wells,  borough  suffrage  in,  14. 

Wells,  Maine,  annexed  to  Mass., 
352. 

Weobley,  borough  suffrage  in,  12. 

West  India  Company,  Dutch,  op 
poses  popular  government,  262 
note;  cedes  land  to  city  of  Am 
sterdam,  263,  265. 


West  Jersey,  separated  from  East 
Jersey,  235;  general  character 
of  history,  243;  title-changes, 
243-245 ;  Fenwick's  colony,  245 ; 
concessions  to  settlers  of  1677, 
245 ;  political  provisions  of,  245- 
246;  suffrage  under,  246;  ballot, 
246;  popular  participation  in 
government,  246-247;  represen 
tation  of  towns,  247 ;  number  of 
representatives,  248 ;  transferred 
to  crown,  248. 

West,  John,  elected  governor  in 
Va.,  24. 

West,  Joseph,  chosen  governor  in 
S.  C.,  126. 

Westbury,  borough  suffrage  in,  12, 

13- 

Westchester,  N.  Y.,  charter  of, 
191,  193. 

Wethersfield,  Conn.,  church-mem 
bership  in,  385 ;  land  matters  in, 
427. 

Wheelwright,  John,  exiled  from 
Mass.,  307;  in  N.  H.,  370;  in 
Maine,  372. 

Whorekill,  Del.,  court  established 
at,  267. 

Williams,  Roger,  exiled  from 
Mass.,  307,  430;  articles  of  as 
sociation  with  other  settlers, 
431,  432,  434;  theory  of  religious 
liberty,  452. 

Wilmington,  Del.,  Swedish  settlers 
near,  261 ;  court  established  at, 
267;  charter  of,  272;  suffrage 
in,  ibid. 

Wilmington,  N.  C,  114,  115. 

Windsor,  Conn.,  church  election 
in,  423;  land  matters  in,  427. 

Winthrop,  Fitz-John,  governor  of 
Conn.,  402 ;  secures  charter,  405. 

Winthrop,  John,  reasons  for  set 
tlement  of  New  England,  300, 
301 ;  elected  governor  in  1647 
by  large  majority,  317. 

Woodbridge,  N.  J.,  charter  to, 
233;  land-holders  refusing  to 
patent  lands  to  be  disfranchised, 
233 ;  charter  of,  249  note. 

Writs  of  election,  provided  for  by 
English  statute,  7;  in  M<jL,  51, 
53;  limit  suffrage,  62;  conten 
tion  concerning  in  Md.,  63-64; 
terms  of,  66 ;  in  N.  C.,  90 ;  cause 
dissatisfaction,  96 ;  in  S.  C.,  136 ; 


Index. 


necessary  before  people  can  elect 
representatives,  150;  in  N.  J. 
in  1703  fail  to  provide  for  elec 
tion  districts,  250. 
Wyatt,  Governor,  of  Va.,  20;  con 
tinues  assembly  system,  22. 

Yeamans,  Major  William,  pro 
poses  to  settle  colony  in  Caro 
lina,  83. 

Yeardley,  Governor  of  Va.,  calls 
representative  assembly,  20;  de 
sires  to  continue  it,  23. 

York  County,  Pa.,  election  evils 
in,  285. 


York,   Duke  of,    receives   N.   Y., 

196;    his   representative  grants 

terms  of  capitulation  to  Dutch, 

197. 
York,  Maine,  city  government  in, 

350;    annexed  to  Mass.,  352. 
Yorkshire,    a    county    of    N.    Y., 

197. 
Young  people,  in  Mass,  as  political 

agitators,    316;     in    Conn.,    as 

voters,  423 ;  as  electors  in  R.  I., 

47i. 
Youngs,  John,  leader  of  popular 

movement   in    Southold,   L.    I., 

400. 


THE   END. 


KEL 


RETURN 
TO 


MAIN  CIRCULATION 


ALL  BOOKS  ARE  SUBJECT  TO  RECALL 
RENEW  BOOKS  BY  CALLING  642-3405 


DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 


APR  2 1  199 


0  3  200 


FORM  NO.  DD6 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  BERKELEY 
BERKELEY,  CA  94720 


iENERAL  LIBRARY -U.C.  BERKEL 


6000^75317 


J 

A 


